"Drinking the Kool-Aid"

[Karl Henning]

I tried for three decades (in the case of Debussy). Finally hearing La Mer live at a concert in Mannheim (Dutoit conducting the O National de France) provided the breakthough moment. It's been love ever since 

Sarge

Love stories like that.  Less dramatically with myself, as with the Mahler symphonies and Bruckner . . . once the music clicks with you, all the barriers are obliterated, no material for a post-mortem . . . .

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

How about composers instead of recordings?  I submit Ravel and Debussy.  I tried for almost a decade to "get" them.  At last I've given up on them and written them of, and I feel SOOOOOO much better now.

I'm still in that same boat. The odd thing is, I'm a fan of composers who were heavily influenced by Debussy, like Martinu and Lutoslawski. But the D Man himself still puts me to sleep.

[RJR]

Debussy is my second favorite composer. Beethoven is, and will always remain, number one.

[modUltralaser]

I have pretty much everything they ever wrote, in multiple recordings.  Just not for me.

"You don't know what you like, you like what you know" Ernst Gombrich (paraphrase)

[MishaK]

Anything with Thielemann. Also Pavo Järvi. I don't really get what's supposed to be so great about what he does (fast and lean with no character has been done before and better).

[Brian]

Pavo Järvi. I don't really get what's supposed to be so great about what he does (fast and lean with no character).

Sounds 100% like my opinion of Neeme.

[MishaK]

Muti's Philadelphia Scriabin. It seems like pretty much everyone's go-to set, and it doesn't sound bad at first listen, but something always felt wrong and when I did some detailed a-b comparisons (clips should still be available somewhere on the board) found that shocking amount of detail is nowhere to be heard, blended, smoothed over and completely buried - Karajan-at-his-worst style. Ditched the set promptly.

That's sadly the sound Muti all too often seems to go for, which is why I rarely go to his concerts here in Chicago. Though he surprised me positively with a wonderfully alive Bruckner 1, of all things.

[MishaK]

Sounds 100% like my opinion of Neeme.

But Neeme at least produced competently autopiloted recordings of exotic material nobody else bothered to record before him.  Not sure why we need Paavo's recordings.

[Brian]

But Neeme at least produced competently autopiloted recordings of exotic material nobody else bothered to record before him.  Not sure why we need Paavo's recordings.

That's absolutely true (although last year Neeme put out some stone-hearted CDs of Chabrier and Saint-Saens), but it's also very frustrating because of that lack of choice. Like, right now we're supposed to all be so thankful to Chandos for having Neeme do the Atterberg symphonies, but the performances sound completely conductorless.

[Karl Henning]

. . . stone-hearted . . . .

How . . . E-stone-ian.

(Oh, I kid.)

(Or do I?)

[Todd]

although last year Neeme put out some stone-hearted CDs of...Saint-Saens

I would have thought this a huge improvement.

[MishaK]

That's absolutely true (although last year Neeme put out some stone-hearted CDs of Chabrier and Saint-Saens), but it's also very frustrating because of that lack of choice. Like, right now we're supposed to all be so thankful to Chandos for having Neeme do the Atterberg symphonies, but the performances sound completely conductorless.

Right, but my point is that Neeme was at least producing something arguably original in that nobody had bothered recording that stuff at all, with or without conductor/heart of any material of choice. Whereas Paavo is merely duplicating existing (mostly mainstream) catalog material without much distinction.

[Brian]

I like Jarvi's Beethoven symphonies, at least the ones I've heard, 3, 8, 2 and 6.  The energetic and transparent interpretations are just how I like it done.

But this thread is about those who "don't get" what many others seem to have no difficulty appreciating.

I agree with you, but even in the case of P. Jarvi's Beethoven, Dausgaard did it first (and in the case of 2 & 3, better, but Dausgaard's Pastorale is pretty chilly).

[Pat B]

While we're piling on the Järvi's, I watched some of Paavo's Beethoven on youtube and I found his conducting style really off-putting. It seemed like a smug and contrived attempt to appear spontaneous. The performance seemed good, and maybe I would enjoy it in audio-only form, but now I don't know if I can get over that mental image of him.

[MishaK]

I agree with you, but even in the case of P. Jarvi's Beethoven, Dausgaard did it first (and in the case of 2 & 3, better, but Dausgaard's Pastorale is pretty chilly).

And Antonini does the whole HIP-influenced-on-modern-instruments-with-reduced-forces thing a million times better, with more spontaneity, less mechanical and more character.

I've seen Paavo a few times live with a number of different bands (e.g. HRSO/CSO) and none of those occasions were terribly exceptional. I don't mind his conducting style. It's the uninteresting interpretation that bothers me.

[Superhorn]

   Brian, I could not disagree with you more bout Neeme Jarvi's performnces . I haven't heard  lot of Paavo's , but what little I've heard has been excellent . 
    The elder Jarvi has made outstnding recordings of such a wide variety of repertoire with so many different orchestras .
I've never heard  performnce of his which was not full of personality . He's simply unbeatble in Scandinavian music , without meaning to dismiss other outstanding conductors of this repertoire such as  Blomstedt, Berglund , Segerstam and Salonen etc.
And Jarvi hs given classical CD collectors a chance ot hear so much interesting off-beat repertoire which  you would have almost no chance of ever hearing live .

[Daverz]

How about composers instead of recordings?  I submit Ravel and Debussy.  I tried for almost a decade to "get" them.  At last I've given up on them and written them of, and I feel SOOOOOO much better now.

I don't get it.  There isn't anything to "get".

[Beorn]

I don't get it.  There isn't anything to "get".

He doesn't get what the big whoop is. 

[Karl Henning]

Moins de whoop

[Gurn Blanston]

He doesn't get what the big whoop is. 

I thought he didn't get 'WHY' the big whoop is.