My Introduction/Nigel Kennedy

Ok, here iam.

First of all - i have been reluctant to post in the classical arena, as the regulars (RDS/Tones/GrahamN etc, whose posts i often read) appear to be highly knowledgable, which i am not, and so it is a bit bewildering, and difficult to attempt to contribute. However, i am a big classical music fan, and it accounts for the majority of my listening, both via pre-recorded material and Radio3 etc.

I thought my first topic would be a good one alongside my 'introduction', as i understand that Nigel Kennedy causes a little controversy and split judgement as to his place in classical music. My technical knowledge on the subject is thin to say the least - i have never played an instrument, nor have i been to a classical concert (i hope to soon), nor have i had any formal music education. I came to classical music at a late stage and discovered its 'wonders' entirely on my own. 'autodidact' is probably too generous and indulgent a word, but you get the drift.

So back to Kennedy. As a good example, i get immense enjoyment from listening to his take on Bach's Violin Concertos for example. Why? i don't know - i couldn't attempt to describe the technicalities of his approach and method, nor the elements of the composition of Bach's pieces. However, i find them to be extremely enjoyable, in this instance primarily due to the speed, purity(?) and energy of Kennedy's playing. Admittedly, the only other version i own is one by Itzhak Perlman - a much slower version - still much enjoyable with lovely violin playing with beautiful textures(?) - but given the choice between the two, i would always pick the Kennedy off the shelf.

So, i have been honest here about my lack of knowledge, whilst holding a great passion for classical music, and hope to get some positive feedback. Am i a less credible listener for enjoying Kennedy? Sounds stupid, but its a serious question, which i wanted to raise. Am i dragging classical down from its lofty perch (as it is unfortunately perceived by many and promulgated by others)? I also think Gorecki's third incidentally (another good one to bring up whilst i am at it) is immensly beautiful - whilst highly minimalistic, and as i get the impression, not entirely respected in the classical elite (partially due to its success in the mainstream?). But for me it is a moving piece, and one i dig out regulalry when i have a spare hour.

I listen to a wide range of classical music, particularly romantic, but also earlier stuff from Bach and Mozart etc. I don't feel a natural affinity towards any particular point of history in classical music, i just enjoy music with 'passion' if you like, whenever/wherever it is from. I find some of the 20th century stuff difficult to get into however, as it is not immediatley identifiable, and as far as i can discern, not entirely melodic etc, making it tricky to enjoy in the first instance. Structure/ form etc are not things i really appreciate - music is music for me and it needs to grab me in the chest before the head if you know what i mean? I like chamber/orchestral/vocal and instrumental music, but as yet have only dipped a toe into operatic stuff - a bit trickier to get started?? Only listened fully to a couple, such as well known stuff like Rigoletto/La Boheme/Samson and Delilah, highly enjoyable at times, but sometimes difficult to remain focused throughout?

I'll stop now before, i sink any further, but hence to say i would like to contribute and learn from this echelon of the forum, but it must be recognised that i am a bit of a novice, when it comes to the type of dialectic that the likes of GrahamN and co so impressively (not meant sarcastically) spout out on regular occasion.

Regards

 

Hey, Cookiemonster! Always good to welcome another classical music fan on board. Be reassured; I also have no musical training, cannot play an instrument, cannot read music. I came to it on my own and have developed it on my own. Titian asked me why I liked Gardiner's Monteverdi Vespers more than any other - did it just come down to "I like vanilla ice cream best"? Well, yes, I'm afraid it does - JEG's version just reaches out and grabs me the way no other does. And that makes it the best version for me. And, like you, I have difficulty with much 20th. century music. I'm a listener of the heart, rather than the head.

With regard to Nigel Kennedy (is he back to Nigel, or is it still just "Kennedy"?), he is a superbly accomplished player. The anti-establishment performance seems a good gimmick, but it may also get people to listen to classical. I haven't heard a Kennedy record for a long time, so I can't judge (Graham the string player could give you a better opinion there), but if you like him, why not? Liking Kennedy does not make you any less credible as a listener, in my view. Speaking of the Bach violin concertos, my personal favourite is the recording of the young Anne-Sophie Mutter, not at all "authentic", but played with such warmth, feeling and artistry that I find it completely irresistible.

Classical listening is a much broader church than some people would have you believe. There is a great variety of performances and opinions. Graham and I both like Karajan's Beethoven's Ninth, but look at how many people like something else. There are those that find Karajan too glamorous, smooooth and schmaltzy (I think he was in later years) and want something more rugged, but each to his own. There's room for everyone. Welcome aboard!

 

Like Tones, my musical knowledge is practically zero. I grew up listening to raaawwk, HM and punk and kind of found myself needing something more challenging. Started off with the standard "classics" Beethoven symphonies, piano concerti (barenboim box set, still my favourite version of No.5) , Brahms symphones 2 and 4. Took me a while to "learn " how to listen to it and get used to recognising the basic structural techniques. I've ended up listening to mostly 20thC and late romantic symphonies but although there is little to beat getting totally involved in Mahler 2 or Shostakovic (never can spell his name) 8 or 10, I must say though I always return to my rock roots.

And if I can listen to it, it must be on a pretty lowly perch !!!

 

Cheers Tones.

TBH, i've always found it difficult to describe any form of music effectively. This is even more difficult with classical due to the whole 'language' which has evolved with it. Like science - a new language evolves to enable the adequate description and translation of ideas peculiar to that field. And so as a newcomer, who has not had any formal training or hands on experience with instruments etc its difficult to convey ones thoughts on a piece of music to someone else who is trained in that field.

I know some basics just through following discussions, reading magazines etc - andante/allegro/rondo/scherzo etc etc. But don't feel adequately qualified to use these terms with conviction. Of course, it is also a set back when reading other peoples' reviews of music for example, when it is sometimes difficult to grasp exactly what is being described.

However, all that said, in some respects i find it less of a burden. Quite often with a new cd i will completely ignore the liner notes - other than perhaps for a few historical details about the composer/conductor for example which may interest me - and prefer to just slap the disc on the spinner - sit back, relax and hopefully enjoy the music, without concerning myself with the finer points of the technical aspects of the piece.

What concerns me though - which does not necessarily apply to 'popular' music, is the fact that individuals who have had the classical 'upbringing' and speak the 'lingo' will tend to disregard the opinions of the uneducated, with reference to the fact of their lack of understanding of the piece of music, and consequent inability to make an 'accurate' judgement on the merits of said piece of music. But in truth, it all boils down to taste. I can understand though how some people might feel as though their 'specialist' subject if you will is becoming 'diluted'. Hence my particular reference to the likes of Kennedy and Gorecki's 3rd.

Anyway, i am meandering.
Another point i would like to raise though is the sticky subject of classical compilations . My first reaction to these is that they are fine - at the end of the day, folk should listen to whatever they get enjoyment from, and if that means just a collection of arias from the popular operas, or the 'theme tunes' from the popular orchestral suites so be it. However, there IS snobbery involved here, whichever way you want to put it - any classicist is more than likely to pour scorn on these comps on principle that they hack away at some of the greatest pieces of music, just to extract the 'best bits' (usually highly melodic and intelligible 'theme tunes') and serve them up in 3min bites ala popular music for the imagined 'plebian' public to consume, more often than not in car adverts . I even have no issue with that - why should there be IMO. But my honest opinion is that rather than being condescending as regards this sort of approach, i actually believe the public are being done a dis-service. To listen to a snippet of a piece of classical music goes against the grain of the whole way in which the piece was constructed in order to convey the musical message and emotion. To hear 2 mins of Spring of the Four Seasons (track no1 on most comps!) - whilst enjoyable is not particularly as worthy or rewarding as listening to the whole piece. Its like serving up the topping off a cake or something. It is obviously no longer a cake, and is not the same. However, just my opinion, if that is what people want that is fine - but to me it is just a reflection of the trend of popular music, which is squeezed into 3/4 min tracks. That is part of the attraction for me in classical music - to be able to sit down for 20mins - 2hrs with just one piece of music. It can be often difficult and not always on first listen entirely enjoyable. However, if you give it enough time and attention, i feel the rewards to be had are much greater than in a 3 min 'hit me quick' chunk of pop. But this is symtomatic of our current era is it not, a disposabal society, that needs things quick and without hard work. Yes, i like plenty of popular music, and am curently investigating the wonders of the horribly titled 'world music', but i just find classical music similar to sitting down with a good book as opposed to half an hour of Eastenders on the telly. Both can be entertaining - but the later is rarely moving and is usually forgotten. (I listen to and own plenty of 'popular' music but some how it just seems more 'fluid, without the permanence of much classical music - e.g
many discs i bought 5-10yrs ago, i nolonger listen to - a bit like a passing phase?)

Gone of on a tangent again - this has turned into a sort of stream of consciousness rather than a reply to a specific point, but nevermind.

I hope i can join in with a few of the topics in discussion, and maybe discover a few hitherto unnoticed gems.

cheers

i'll have to dig out that Anne Sophie- Mutter version too, 'cos i love the violin concertos. (What's with her recent marriage BTW - he is sooooo much older?)

 

However much i like classical music, it's impossible IMO to escape entirely from what you were brought up on - which for me involved no classical music, and mainly rock/indie/pop etc. I still listen plenty to all genres.

 

Wow - so much good there cookie, I don't know where to start - and I don't have time to comment further now. I'll try later.

As with anything worth discovering, the language does tend to pick up a lot of jargon, which we have to work hard at to stop scaring off those to whom it's less familiar.

As for "our Nige" - I actually have nothing by him, but he is (was) an excellent violinist before his well-publicised problems. His attempts at popularising classical were clearly well-intentioned, but with hindsight seem just a bit misguided - and "Spitting Images" really did for him. It remains to be seen whether his comeback gets anywhere. I'm led to believe his Elgar in particular is considered a long way in front of any other recent recording.

If the recent performances I've seen by her are anything to go by Anne-Sophie has really lost her way - marriage must be taking up more of her energy!

Excellent posts.

 

Anne-Sophie must like older men - I think her first husband (who died) was also considerably older. Still a great-looking doll and a wonderful player. She says she favours her trademark shoulderless gowns because she loves to feel the violin vibrating on her skin.

I have no problems with compilations of classical. If it makes one person say "Wonder what the rest sounds like?" and pick up a cheap Naxos copy and set forth on a wonderful voyage of exploration, it's worth it. As you say, they're good for folk with short attention spans. But they do give you the icing on the cake, rather than the cake. It's like reading a bit of a book and missing the whole context in which that bit is set and gives it its meaning. I confess to being guilty of "bittism" sometimes; I rarely get the chance to listen to my beloved Monteverdi's Vespers all the way through, but my favourite pick-me-up and/or cure for the blues is to play one (or both) of the big, spectacular choral numbers "Nisi Dominus" and "Lauda Jerusalem" - or even better, watch them on the computer on the DVD. These thrill me to the core.

Curiously, I never do this with my other love, Bach's cantatas - it has to be a whole cantata at a time. Thankfully they're not that long. Indeed, they're of such manageable, useful size that's it's a wonder that they're not heard more often. Perhaps they're seen too much as "religious" music, and that puts people off. This is a shame, because they can be enjoyed independently of their religious context, as can the B Minor Mass and the Passions. ("Messiah" is not actually religious music (in the sense of being written for the church) - at the time, people disputed whether the subject was suitable for an entertainment. Now there's one for you to try - probably the most approachable of the towering masterpieces).

 

BTW - the Bach Violin Concertos i was referring to are on the disc below with Kennedy alongside the Berlin Philharmonic:



http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00004YU7I/qid=1056467411/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_3_10/026-3116317-1242044

Top stuff - a recommendation from an amateur to a pro


(Interestingly - the liner notes are all glossy, with nice choice Kennedy snaps and notes . Bit of self indulgence and arrogance on his part i feel (i can see where the critiscisms come from) - but personally i don't care about all that)

Cheers

 

IF you think some people has problem with Nigel then you should see the response I get when I told them I have been to Vanesa-Mae concert twice.

 

Unfortunately time contraints are an issue for everyone, so it is not everyday we can sit down to a full rendition of Missa Solemnis or 9th Symp, without being interrupted or called away. But given the opportunity, i'd much prefer to enjoy a full piece of music. I too listen to excerpts though on occasion if i am rushed. Not sure how GrahamN gets time to relax to any music at home with all the concerts he is reported to attend. But i suppose when you are getting the 'real thing' everyday it is not so much of an issue.

Are you referring to Messiah - the one with the well known soaring 'chorus'. I'll have to scan your Bach threads again - its a world all of its own - so much Bach material available - i was keen on getting a foothold with some organ music too, but where to start - i have the Grammophone guide which i refer to, but still, it is tricky.

Thanks for the responses and encouragement.

 

I only remember listening to Nigel Kennedy once. I think (may be wrong) it was the Brahms concerto. If one didn't pay attention to his looks, he played rather like other violinists, but he was rather good.

I seem to have some kind of recollection of not having liked something by him. But I may be wrong - the memeory is too faint.

I don't know of any problems he had...

He meant well - tried to get common people to like old music. If he failed because of some problems, that is quite a shame.

A lot of musicians began their career by exploring something in their appearance: Pogorelich, Scott Ross, up to a point Reinhardt Goebel and the Musica Antiqua Köln. But I think they stayed not because of their looks: they stayed because they had something to say.

But looks definitely have something to do with success. One case ij point is Pregardien. When one sees him live as an Evangelist in one of Bach's passions, he seems to exude a very strong emotion. That is less clear in records, of if you sit far from him and cannot see him well. In a wat this is OT.

Of what i know from Kennedy, he played very well - normally, unlike Glenn Gould or Friedrich Gulda, for instance - and dresses in funny ways. Well, so what? As long as he plays well all is well.

..

 

Cough, cough... Have you tried this:

https://www.audio-forums.com/as-rediect/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20

and this:

https://www.audio-forums.com/as-rediect/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14

I don't mean to sound vain, buy I did post them for people to read them...

Anyway, try the Messiah hre:

https://www.audio-forums.com/as-rediect/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39

 

Sorry RDS - i didn't check the provenance of the relevant threads. I will read all the Bach threads by both yourself and Tones in the next few days, when i can dedicate some proper time to them. Bit pushed at the moment. Hopefully i will be able to draw up a shortlist of discs to purchase and i will feedback.

Cheers

 

Me too - however, I think that if you know the work, then it's not so "bad". I quite often listen to the last 30-45 minutes of Wagner's Götterdämmerung (from Siegrieds funeral march, to the end) on it's own. TBH, I've rarely sat down and properly listened to any of the Ring operas in their entirety (at 4 hours a piece you need time ).

cookiemonster - some great observations and comments. I was brought up on classical but then went through a period where I hardly listened to it at all and amassed a large number of pop/rock CDs but now the sheep that lost it's way is returning to the pen Recently I've again been buying more and more classical and listening to a lot more aswell. As you say, I've found that most popular music is so transient - a lot of the stuff I listened to even 5 years ago I haven't played since then! Classical definitely has much more "staying power" and you can always find something new with every listen.

I also agree with your views on how classical has this elitist edge to it which I really don't agree with. Even as someone who was brought up on classical and studied the theory (and I play the piano too) I still listen to music with the heart rather than the head (nice expression Tones ). I like the Wagner operas because I like them. I understand the story and some of the background but not in great detail - I don't know if you saw my post on the "Introduction to classical" thread over on GH but my slightly simplistic, perhaps, views of Wagner (and a number of other composers) were ripped to shreds by one particular poster (who didn't post on GH again). It's that kind of attitude that really p*sses me off. It's like saying you can't understand Wuthering Heights if you haven't studied English Lit.

Michael.

 

I posted in reply to it Michael - but in Latin - i was hoping to stretch his erudition and provoke a response, from comments which i also thought were unnecessary and high brow.(regardless of whether yopur comments were entirely correct/misaligned or whatever). If correction to mistakes or a difference of opinion is espoused it should be done in a more amiable and approachable manner IMO. And if his aim was to teach as opposed to just flourishing in his superiority, he would have more success by posting in a less derogatory fashion. Anyway, unfortunately he did not descend from Babel for the inquisition.


Thanks for the positive responses fellas - you may regret such kindness - i may have been sufficiently encouraged to pen further posts.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...21899/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2_2/026-0111128-1014807

 

appreciate the time saving link Tones - another one to add to the list.

many thanks

 

I've always had a soft spot for Nigel Kennedy. In an age where most string players seem to be rather tedious, alike and colourless, he really has taken up the mantle and had a go at challenging some views. He probably plays the Elgar and Sibelius fiddle concertos as well as anyone. The trouble is that sometimes in the effort of challenging conventions he sometimes completely forgets that classical music is also about conventions, a type of baby and the bathwater scenario. His 4 seasons is IMHO absolutely gross.
When I was at Music College I used to listen to a tape of his playing the Bartok solo sonato and an arrangement he'd made or Ellingtons Black and Tan fantasy. It was just brim full of tone colours. If you really like Kennedy on the fiddle, perhaps try some of the older generation of violinists. Isaac Stern, David Oistrach, Jascha Heifitz and my particular favourite Michael Rabin. If you like Kennedy's Bach have a go at Glenn Gould doing Bach on the piano. RDS is gonna kill me.............

 

Oh, dear! I had a nice answer to His Summiyship, all based on smilies, but It seems <i overdid it and I lost my post!

There is a very apt answer to you, your Lordship, (check the name of the smilie): :nigel:

So let's have a polite war about Glenn Gould. For the Bach non initiated, bringing Gould into a clasic thread is like bringing Mana, Russ Andrews, Naim and Free Willy all bundled together into a hifi thread... The result being: :gatling:

I'll try to describe Glenn Glould's playing of Bach. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words: :elephant:

hehe :RdS:

 

:yikes: :chainsaw:




Is all I have to say.

You know that in some ways I agree with you. GG is certainly idiosyncratic for the sake of it sometimes. Just sometimes, ne occasionally I think he finds a different beauty in music just by being different. Just like Mr Kennedy. You are undoubtably right that GG is not the definitive Bach performer, but isn't it nice that different interpretations can co-exist.

Anyway I couldn't wait for the response