Mr. Pe-Zulu's countrywoman...

Just listening to this now. One thing's for sure, the girl's simply not human. The things she does with a bit of wood with holes in it are astonishing. And Keith Jarrett provides very nice harpsichord accompaniment to back this miracle worker.

Michala Petri has often been accused of being merely a virtuoso without any artistic sense. I didn't find this here. You get dazzling virtuosity in bucketfuls, but the quieter passages seemed to me to be nicely played, without any attempt to show off. A very nice disc.

 

Michala Petri

Tones, I have never heard her play live, but several times in Danish radio and TV, and have heard many of her recordings. From young age complete perfection was her primary aim, and I think she still attaches more weight to perfection than to expression. Five years ago I heard her in TV play her own arrangement of Tartinis well known g-minor sonata "Devils trill" complete with the difficult doubletrills in the "cadence" of the last movement. I haven't realized, how she (from a tecnical point of view) did this, but her playing was 200% perfect. Overwhelming, yes, but totally concentrated on perfection.

The Bach CD from 1992 with K Jarrett contains (as you know) her arrangements of the sonatas for traverso and cembalo or continuo. I agree that her playing here is more expressive than usual (maybe the influence from Jarrett was the decisive factor), but if you compare e.g. with the recordings of Franz Brüggen or Bart Kuijken (both on traverso), it is obvious that her result is a little stiff.
The cause is not only her playing, but the instrument as well. I don't think the recorder is a good choice for this music, which was written for traverso. Incidentally I like the recorder much (play it myself), but in another repertoire. She made another CD with Keith Jarrett 1991 with sonatas of Händel for recorder and continuo, and whatever the cause: This is IMHO much better, maybe because the music was written for recorder with its natural limits(Händel was well aware of that in his writing), and because the expressive elements are easier to evoke in Händels sonates than in Bachs, since Bachs music (even his "lighter" music) is much more profound than
Händels, and accordingly deserves much more concentration on expression than Mikala Petri apparently is able to .
So her Bach is just good, her Händel is very good.

Regards,

 

Thanks for that, Pe-Zulu, very interesting. I've seen the Handel disc in the shop, but now I might spend more money!

I've never heard the Handel sonatas, so I obviously can't judge, but as a general comment, do you think that Bach is generally more profound than Handel? I've always thought of them as being different, the two great men of the baroque, who basically said everything there was to say in that form. Handel, the man of the world, one-third of whose output was operas in the Italian style, Bach the small(ish) town cantor and occasional court composer. Clearly Handel's organ works aren't a patch on Bach's (although Handel was apparently an accomplished organist), but the concerti grossi are to me the equal of the Brandenburgs, and to me Handel had more flair with choral music than had Bach (all that operatic writing, I guess).

Let's just say I'm glad we had both of them and that between them they left the world a priceless treasure of great music. It's a pity that they never did meet (there were a couple of opportunities, but neither came off). It's also a pity that they both lost their sight through the work of the same English crank!

 

Bach and Händel

Tones, To make sure that my former impression of Petris HändelCD was valid, I have listened to it once more.
And I can say, that I was even more moved to day than before. The noble natural singing of the slow movements and the playful character of the fast movements with stylish variations in the repetitions don't fail to impress. Surely this must be one of her best recordings.
And the full, sonorous accompaniement of Jarret is apt busy when needed and more reflective when needed. You don't miss the obligatory viola da gamba at all.

For comparation I listened to two Bach flute-harpsichord sonatas arranged and played by Stefano Bagliani and Ottavio Dantone (Dynamic). More expressive than Petris Bach, but still not hiding the shortcomings of the recorder in this repertoire, making me long for a true traverso.

My remark that I find Bachs music more profound than Händels, aimed primarily at their instumental music. I don't know much more of Händels opera music than a few arias, and the same is true of his sacral music (except of course Messias). But as I (in between) slowly work (or walk) my way through the Hänssler "complete" Bach cantatas, I find it increasingly difficult to believe that any composer has equalled or will ever equal Bach as to the profoundity and variety of his sacral music. His cantatas are really an everlasting supply of spiritual, emotional and musical richness.

I don't intend to undervaluate Händels instrumental music, rather to put his and Bachs music into some reasonable coherence. What is striking in Bachs music is the strong spiritual concentration, the abundant invention and the complete mastery of counterpoint AND its outstanding and varied expressive strength. You find this in all his works from the small preludes in the Friedemann Bach book through the Brandenburgs to The Art of Fugue.

In contrast Händels music is lighter wowen, more immediate, real counterpoint scanty, tending towards the careless. Some of his music doesn't really take off. Most of it on the other hand is indeed very beautiful and stimulating, but IMO in another way than Bachs music.

Händels music talks almost entirely to our emotions, whereas Bachs music talks equally to our mind and our emotions, offering us an unique possibility to experience a syntesis of the two different parts of our nature at the same time.

This may be obvious, but explains why I find Bachs music more universal (and profound) than Händels, and why I more often feel prompted to listen to Bach than to Händel.

Regards,

 

There you will find no argument from the Compulsive Cantater! (Gardiner's third volume will be out sometime this month - looking forward to that). Of course, Handel wrote very little religious music - "Messiah" is NOT a religious piece, even though it is subtitled "a sacred oratorio". In those days, composers wrote music based on allegorical/fabulous or religious subjects. (Handel's first oratorio, "Israel in Egypt", was about the Exodus). The Jennens libretto for "Messiah" was considered very daring at the time, and many people queried as to whether such a subject should be used for an "entertainment". And the rest, as they say, is history.

Handel's most magnificent religious work (and IMHO one of the most spectacular and exciting ever written) is his setting of Psalm 110 "Dixit Dominus", one of a group of works for the Carmelites when he was a young man in Rome. I love Bach, but even Bach rarely shows such spectacular style (perhaps of course I'm just shallow!). This is worth a listen - I'm told it's absolute murder to sing - Handel, with a profound understanding of the human voice, wrote it on the edges of possibility:

I'm not an musician, so I don't know enough to comment. However, I would disagree that Handel appeals "almost entirely to the emotions". It is true that Handel is the more spectacular (the man of the world and of the theatre), but to me the profundity of thought also seems to be there. "Messiah" is much hackneyed, but considerable thought went into it (all the more amazing when you reflect that it was written in three weeks!). Listen to the way the music reflects the libretto. And I'm no expert in counterpoint, but the final great Amen of "Messiah" seems to be a fine example.

In short, I'm glad I have both to listen to. When you have Bach, Handel (and of course Monteverdi), who needs anyone else?

 

*waves*

 

I am fond of my "Landowska plays Handel" CD, and I think I can hear lots of counterpoint too. Spectacular artistry. Great Pleyel harpsichord sound is an additional bonus. Pleyel - man among boys. (Sorry if I interrupted your duel.)

 

No duel, just a slight difference of point of view. And wouldn't it be boring if we all thought the same? Why, there's even a place for rock lovers and cable believers (mainly as laughing stocks).

 

Händel

Dear Tones

It seems necessary to stress again, that my remarks about Händel applied to his instrumental music. I should very much like to investigate some of his sacred music and perhaps operas, though I am no real opera-fan.

I suppose, you recommend the recording of the Psalm 110 of Minkowski, since you put in a picture of it. I know it has been well spoken of in the medias.

And I shall find a recording of the Conoration Anthems, perhaps Pinnock? - you know I am a HIP manic, almost.

And if you should recommend a Händel opera, which one would you recommend, and which recording?

Regards,

 

The Minkowski recording of Dixit Dominus is indeed excellent - typical high energy performance of a work that really stretches a choir.

You can hear some of the Coronation Anthems here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...1451/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_10_8/202-0440689-1647058

And here's a CD that gives you Dixit Dominus and Zadok the Priest, the most famous of the Coronation Anthems:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...71/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10_10/202-0440689-1647058

I'm actually not a great fan of Handel's operas - I love the oratorios (which, in a way, are operas without the expense of costumes and staging). After "Messiah", the most famous is the first one written, "Israel in Egypt", which has absolutely stunning choral writing. The one to go for is Gardiner's second recording for Philips, which throbs with excitement:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...11919/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_2_5/202-0440689-1647058

And with this one, you get TWO Coronation Anthems!

Other excellent choral works are the Chandos Anthems, written while Handel was in service with the Duke of Chandos, at the start of his stay in England.

 

Händel

Bat,

As Tones put it, no duel at all.

I hope that you don't think of it as a duel, when you and I exchange points of view.

As to Händel even Landowska (an artist whose recordings IMO are beyond criticism, despite her old fashioned surroundings- have you heard her Scarlatti recordings fx.?)
can't hide, that a Bach fugue is much more masterly worked out and profund than a Händel fugue. Compare the fugues of WTC with the fugues of Händels great harpsichord suites (first collection). Or compare Händels sarabandes in the same suites with the sarabandes of the English suites or the sixth Partita!!
But since Händel is a very great composer, it just reflects Bachs greatness, that he is greater.

Regards,

 

Dear Tones

Many thanks.

I have ordered the Dixit Dominus with Minkowski and the Dixit Dominus/Zadok the priest with Gardiner at jpc, who have got them on stock. I shall of course report back to you.

Regards,

 

May I join the duet (not duel -Bat, you forgot to cross the l - you meant t, of course). But I agree you PeZulu, here. Bach's counterpoint is very stern, sometimes really severe, sometimes more mechanic (the permutations fugues), but all voices are usually important. With Haendel, we get a sort of «alternating counterpoint», where here one voice takes the lead, then another one does, and so forth. The ideia of a Haendel stretto is a contradiction of terms (he may have made some, but they are not characteristic).

I find Haendel extremely different from Bach. When I am sad, tired or plain depressed, I like to listen to Water music. It really is such a wonderful tonic, sweet and happy at the same time. When I have my rare fits of extroversion I like his firework music, too. And I sometimes listen to his concerts, and even to some of his Oratorios.

But Bach is quite different. It does not advance in a manly way (although it has been suggested that Haendel was gay): it is a brainy thing. You follow his fugues wth real intellectual curiosity. What can he do with that theme? Surely not invert it; and then, Wham, you get the inversion!!

In a sense, I think Haendel was quite British (although he always spoke English with a Teutonic accent): straightforward, not really deep, but extremely decorative. For those who love furniture, a kind of Hepplewhite composer: nice and cosy, but never deep and really never soul shattering. That is definitely not the case with Bach.

Anyway, I am playing and listening almost exclusively 16th 17th century music. And in comparison to these, Bach is closer to Handel - a tad superficial... (SHock horror).

Nah, Buxtehude, Froberger, Sweelinck, Cabezon, Carreira, Coelho, Correa d'Araúxo, the Couperins - these were true masters.

Since then music has become more and more superficial (some Bach, the late Beethoven, the very late Mozart, the late Bruckner are the only ones I can suffer). I feel I am becoming more and more of a reactionnary body in music terms.

 

Aha, good ol' RdS! I knew you'd be along shortly to sort us out, and I knew that you, the lover of counterpoint, would say more or less that! There are times when I wish I knew more of music's technicalities, but there are also times when I'm glad I don't. It means that I can appreciate Bach and Handel on my superficial level and regard them as equal but different. But Handel never deep and soul-shattering? "Messiah", one of the most perfect pairings ever of words and music isn't soul-shattering? There we have to agree to disagree. Music, said Beethoven famously, should strike fire from a man's soul. Bach and Handel, the great pinnacles of the baroque, both do it for me.

I can understand your love of the Water Music, one of the most brilliant pieces of light music ever composed. And all done with relatively few resources. "Go to him," Beethoven said of Handel, "if you wish to learn how to achieve much with little". (Words to that effect anyway).

As to your reactionary tendencies, all I can say is, as they say locally, "Gute Besserung!"

P.S. I notice that your little man with the pipe is called "Quad". He should be mine, especially as I now have ELS-57s (currently being refurbished by the experts, Quad Musikwiedergabe GmbH in Koblenz).

 

Dear Tones. I understand what you say; I can even agree with you. But I am so stroingly biased towards counterpoint that, as you said, my answer is predictable.

As to the Quad smiley, you are most welcome to it. I only used it because I am a pipe smoker.

 

Only joking! Please reinstate him at once! With Swiss, Australian and Irish smileys, I really don't need any more!

 

We really are a lot of mongrels here! You are quite a good example; Joel is another one (he might be an Aboriginal Australian reared in ENgland into a hindu family, working in Japan and married to a Turkish wife, as far as I know), our host is an Englishman reared in Germany an settled in Portugal, Pe-Zulu is a Dane with an African name, I am half French half Portuguese, reared in Italo-German (!!) culture but in Belgium and there are many other cases... A freak show or just very cultured persons?

Thanks, I'll keep it, but if you want it, please do use it.

 

Please put your pipe back at once, RdS.

I like to think we're cosmopolitan! Michael is worse than you think - I think his mother in German and his father was a diplomat - they lived in Iran for a while. I have three passports (British, Irish and Australian), and my daughters have two (Australian, Irish) and will have Swiss ones, if and when they decide they want them. I guess I could have a Swiss one, but I don't want to pay all that money for citizenship, so I'm happy with a C-permit (the Swiss equivalent of a US green card), which lets me do everything except vote - and let's face it, who wants to vote in Switzerland?

 

You are forcing me to resume a nastgy habit, but I will do so!

Cosmopolitan. Yes, it sounds better..

 

That's m'boy!