...forthcoming from cpo:
https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/cpo/detail/-/art/friedrich-gernsheim-symphonien-nr-2-4/hnum/3126659 (https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/cpo/detail/-/art/friedrich-gernsheim-symphonien-nr-2-4/hnum/3126659)
I welcome this - along with CPO's previous recording of the 1st and 3rd symphonies we will have another complete set of the four symphonies.
But what is urgently needed are recordings of the five string quartets. Some years ago the Mandelring Quartet recorded the 2nd (Op. 31 in A minor) in their excellent series of the Brahms quartets (where each was coupled with a quartet by another composer). However there are no recordings at all of the remaining four Gernsheim quartets. Given that, thankfully, Gernsheim seems to be enjoying a rediscovery in recent years all these quartets are surely crying out for a recording. Come on, CPO!
Peter, you might like to try Matesic's fine recordings of the quartets Nos.1, 3 and 5, which are available on each quartet's page at IMSLP.
It's great news about the cpo recording of the symphonies, of course.
Thanks Mark. I'm aware of those recordings - and appreciate them.
However I think my point still stands: there is a pressing need for good commercial recordings of these quartets. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that only when there is an easily available recording of something do those works or their composer gain currency, other groups take up the works, the word gets around, and then there becomes a decent chance of hearing the works in concert.
Hasn't just this been amply demonstrated by Raff, for example? I appreciate it is a long uphill task, and one still bumps into musicians or concert organisers who mutter 'Who?', but think of how many people (myself included!) were wholly unaware of Raff before we had decent commercial recordings of the symphonies, the chamber music, and the piano music. Those were the dark drab Raffless (as it were!) days and it is was largely commercial recordings (and persistent advocacy of Raff by people such as yourself!) that have got us out of that situation.
Besides, I'm a regular unrepentant fully addicted CD junkie. Nothing can beat the presence of a hard physical CD, and an informative set of notes, in the hands. If more shelves have to be built, well, so be it for that's the cost we gladly bear of being an enthusiast for the music discussed in this forum.
I agree wholeheartedly! It's good to know my bedroom renditions are appreciated as a first impression of how these pieces go, but they certainly aren't intended to substitute for the real thing. Considered as a cycle, Gernsheim's string quartets must be among the most significant by any late 19th century composer, sung or unsung. We are fortunate in having a number of first-rate groups (many of them members of the Assocation of German String Quartets) who are willing to devote considerable time and effort to recording such neglected repertoire, but since they also have to earn a living I guess we just have to be patient and trust that all truly deserving cases will eventually receive some justice.
Returning to the symphonies, the new cpo CD is certainly a great advertisement for this music. The older set under Köhler was excellent, of course, but these performances have a greater richness overall and should certainly be in anyone's collection. What magnificent regional orchestras there are in Germany, by the way. The Philharmonic State Orchestra of Mainz on this evidence are certainly one of them.
Allow me to slightly disagree here. After repeated listenings, I find the differences between the Baumer and Köhler pretty minimal. Significantly, the length they take to play movements is often only seconds apart. Granted, the CPO recording is better, but there is little between the orchestras. In the Second Symphony I still prefer Köhler because his recording is a bit more lyrical than the more gemessen (sorry, I've been looking for a synonym in English but can't find one) Baumer. In the Fourth, the Baumer gets my thumbs up - but only by a small margin. I would say that if one already has the Köhler recordings, it is not really worthwhile to buy these too. CPO's sonics are a bit better, but again the difference is not impressive according to my ears.
Well, I disagree - mildly. The cpo issue makes the music sound more substantial to my ears. But Köhler v. Bäumer is a pretty even match-up overall.
A bit of a pity, though. As much as you'd wish a pioneering recording to remain safe, you'd like its successor to look for different approaches. Don't get me wrong, it's a very decent recording, but I would have like liked to hear someone make me discover new aspects of these works.
Well, as I said, to make them sound 'more substantial' isn't a bad achievement on Bäumer's part.
QuoteSignificantly, the length they take to play movements is often only seconds apart.
Is that really significant, though? I'll wager that there are dozens of recordings of Beethoven 5 which clock movement times within seconds. I'll also bet that some are superb and others are mediocre (or worse). I don't think you can pass up performances on the basis that they are too similar in tempo to others - especially when Gernsheim doesn't come along as frequently as London buses...
They're not as good as you find Draeseke's symphonies to be, but they're not fluffy (no offense to hardworking intelligent lagomorphy composers...)
Please elaborate, Eric...
Quote from: bulleid_pacific on Monday 13 June 2016, 23:07
QuoteSignificantly, the length they take to play movements is often only seconds apart.
Is that really significant, though? I'll wager that there are dozens of recordings of Beethoven 5 which clock movement times within seconds. I'll also bet that some are superb and others are mediocre (or worse). I don't think you can pass up performances on the basis that they are too similar in tempo to others - especially when Gernsheim doesn't come along as frequently as London buses...
I disagree with this: The choice of tempo is indicative of many other choices a performer makes (such as a preference for expressive detail vs. for the working out of the overall structural features or for driving rhythm vs. clarity of every note). If performances are within seconds of each other they are ipso facto similar. And if there are only two recordings out there you would wish them more contrasting with each other.
To make your Beethoven example more applicable to the situation at hand you'd have to randomly select two recordings of the fifth and then compare the times. What are the chances they will match closely? Very low I'd wager.
Although the overall timings are similar in some cases, there are significant differences within each symphony.
Comparison table:
Köhler Bäumer
Gernsheim 1
1. 10.01 15.26 (Bäumer takes the repeat here)
2.* 8.36 9.44
3. 7.36 7.39
4. 11.46 11.59
Gernsheim 2
1. 11.23 11.23
2. 4.22 4.02
3.* 5.37 6.38
4. 8.28 7.48
Gernsheim 3
1. 10.58 11.24
2.* 6.39 8.24
3. 4.05 3.53
4. 8.35 9.16
Gernsheim 4
1. 11.01 11.27
2.* 7.55 8.28
3. 3.35 2.58
4. 7.56 7.52
Note, in particular, that Bäumer is slower (and grander) in all the slow movements*. He is also in general slower than Köhler in the first and last movements, with the exception of the finale of No.2 (the difference in timing between their performances of the finale of No.4 is negligible). I think, therefore, that there is ample evidence to support my argument that Bäumer's approach over the whole cycle is sufficiently different from Köhler's to justify its existence. To my mind, Bäumer is superior because the symphonies emerge as bigger pieces; the recording quality is also better, as befits a more up-to-date set.
Just listening to Gernsheim 2 yesterday. Can't wait to hear the new recording!
I don't mean that Draeseke's symphonies are fluffy-
and now I see that the statement I was responding to,
"Well, as I said, to make them sound 'more substantial' isn't a bad achievement on Bäumer's part."
I misread quite entirely, as meaning that there's not much substance to be had in the first place (hence, "fluffy".)
Yes, definitely I am needing to sign up for that remedial reading course, as I've said before...
Oh, misreading's easy, Eric. Not to worry...
An appreciative review at MusicWeb is spoilt by some strange turns of phrase and superficial analysis of the music:
http://musicweb-international.com/classrev/2016/Aug/Gernsheim_sys_7778482.htm (http://musicweb-international.com/classrev/2016/Aug/Gernsheim_sys_7778482.htm)
The review's wrong about the comparison with Köhler too. Oh dear.
As a review it doesn't say much concrete really. Rob Barnett seems to be a nice bloke but I find his reviews really hard to read sometimes, too much purple prose as though they are written with an open thesaurus in one hand. There's no doubt he's done a lot to champion unsung music though. I like the Gernsheim symphonies but I don't think I need to buy another set, the Arte Nova ones seem like good performances to me and I don't have money to splash around.. Sadly.
The Köhler set is perfectly fine. I prefer Bäumer, but buying his set in addition might be indulgence...
Rob's a good guy and generally a friend of unsungs, but I'd say that this review was written in a tearing hurry.
QuoteThe Köhler set is perfectly fine. I prefer Bäumer, but buying his set in addition might be indulgence...
As someone who owns 23 different performances of the Schumann violin concerto in D minor, that doesn't even _begin_ to qualify as an indulgence!
More seriously, if one values the kind of music that Gernsheim and his confreres wrote and listens to it often -- unlike Rob Barnett and Jonathan Woolf, both of whom admit that their reviews reflect first auditions -- then the more spacious, somewhat more searching account of Bäumer and the Philharmonisches Staatsorchester Mainz, especially in the slow movements, are IMHO well worth the investment.
True, Gersheim is not Bruckner nor Brahms nor even Draeseke, but he wrote superbly at the peak of one of the greatest artistic efflorescences of the last 2500 years. To quote Barnett's best sentence: "These two symphonies approach the last word in succinct expressive power ..."
Spot-on!
The cases of Gernsheim and Draeseke highlight what makes comparing composers so difficult. Comparisons seem to focus only on a composer's best (or worst) work, not so much on the entirety of his work. I will gladly admit that Draeseke at his peak ranks among the best, but when I compare his oeuvre with Gernsheim's, I see a qualitative consistenty in the latter that I don't always find in Draeseke. In other words: I've never been disappointed by one of Gernsheim's works, whereas Draeseke has brought both higher elation and deeper discontentment. Theirs are very different types of talent.
I was thinking about this when I recently listened to Louis Abbiate's Monaecencis phantasy for piano and orchestra. Here was a composer I'd dismissed for myself because of the rather long-winded and not very interesting Concerto Italien, serving up a thoroughly fun piece that I will return to. For me, this is what makes the effort to mine unsung works so valuable.
There are very few works by Draeseke which I personally find disappointing. Christus, unfortunately, is one of them. Gernsheim may be a more even composer, but I wouldn't put much of his music on the same level as Draeseke's. What I would say is that Gernsheim is easier to like; Draeseke on the whole is much harder work.