Latest / The Piano Maven with Jed Distler / Reviewing the Reviewer: High Fidelity's 1956 Record Annual Revisited

Transcript

Reviewing the Reviewer: High Fidelity's 1956 Record Annual Revisited · The Piano Maven with Jed Distler

0:00
Thank you. This is Jed Disler and welcome to
0:10
The Piano Maven, your friendly podcast guide
0:13
to piano recordings. Consider taking out a paid
0:16
subscription to The Piano Maven and you can find
0:20
a link to do so in our episode description. Paid
0:24
subscribers get a free download at the start
0:26
of every month and your support helps keep this
0:31
podcast going and helps pay for all kinds of
0:35
things. need to be paid for. I first was hired
0:40
by Gramophone magazine to contribute extended
0:44
articles for a feature that was called North
0:47
American Retrospect. And the premise of this
0:51
column was that we had to give second opinions
0:55
about discs previously reviewed. by our British
1:00
colleagues. In other words, we had to review
1:03
the reviews, or review the reviewer, as it were.
1:08
And that's more or less what I'm going to do
1:11
on this episode, except, unlike making comments
1:15
about my contemporaries, I'm going to go back
1:19
70 years to 1956 and... to the American publication
1:26
High Fidelity magazine, which for many years
1:30
was one of the leading publications in America
1:33
covering classical recordings. Between 1955 and
1:39
1981, High Fidelity brought out this annual compendium
1:45
in book form of all their record reviews published
1:49
in that year. I'm very fortunate to own the entire
1:54
compendium of High Fidelity annuals, and it's
1:59
been an invaluable research tool for me as a
2:03
reviewer and music lover and record person. High
2:07
Fidelity kept on publishing reviews into the
2:11
mid -1980s until the magazine folded, and then
2:15
many of the writers went on to this new classical
2:19
magazine called Opus, which was a marvelous magazine
2:23
that existed between 1984 and 1988, I believe.
2:29
And the Opus reviews eventually became incorporated
2:35
within musical America for a few years, I think
2:39
through maybe 1990, 91. I can't really remember.
2:44
Anyway. I've been looking through the 1956 High
2:49
Fidelity Annual from 70 years ago, and I was
2:55
curious to see how certain recordings that have
2:58
become pretty well known and iconic and points
3:03
of reference were originally reviewed. And I
3:07
wanted to see if these actual reviews stand the
3:11
test of time as much as the recordings. You know,
3:14
I have long been fascinated by the history of
3:17
the record review and how standards have evolved
3:20
and developed. or maybe devolved, over the past
3:24
hundred years or so. My late colleague Mortimer
3:28
F. Frank wrote a really illuminating article
3:31
about the Art of the Record Review for Fanfare
3:34
magazine, and I've posted a link to that article
3:38
so you can read it. And this article puts the
3:41
history of reviewing in perspective. For instance,
3:45
if you look at some of the first reviews that
3:47
appeared in Gramophone in its first year of publication,
3:51
1923, and then through 1924, sometimes the writing
3:56
style of these reviewers can be rather amusing
4:00
because the reviews usually say very little that's
4:04
specific about what the recordings sound like.
4:08
But you have to understand that the record review
4:11
form was in its infancy and people were just
4:15
kind of finding their way, finding their sea
4:17
legs. But not that their American counterparts
4:21
were any better. Although it is interesting to
4:25
read reviews from the 1940s of recordings, reviews
4:29
written by Claudia Cassidy, and these generally
4:32
are right on point. That's a whole other episode.
4:36
But looking through this 1956 High Fidelity edition,
4:40
I'm struck by the great disparity of writing
4:45
styles, some which are very good, others are
4:49
okay, but maybe they need a little work. And
4:52
there's one particular critic whose use of language
4:55
is so exasperating and so obtuse that you really
5:01
need to translate his version of English into
5:05
English. our version of English, and I'm going
5:07
to get to that in a little while. Let's look
5:10
at Glenn Gould's 1955 recording of Bach's Goldberg
5:15
Variations, which has been iconic, of course,
5:19
ever since its release in early 1956. For more
5:25
than 70 years, it's been considered the go -to
5:28
version. It's never been out of print, so far
5:32
as I know. And this recording pretty much put
5:35
Glenn Gould on the international map. Now, when
5:39
it was first released, you have to remember that
5:41
the Goldberg variations on record were rather
5:46
scarce. Probably the recording that was most
5:50
known to American collectors was Wanda Landowska's
5:55
1945 harpsichord recording for RCA Victor. While
6:00
Rosalind Turek's two -record set on piano that
6:05
was issued on the small Allegro label I think
6:09
had much more of a specialist's appeal because
6:12
this was on a tiny label. And she had yet to
6:16
record her version for the more international
6:19
EMI label. That would happen in 1957. And I'm
6:24
not sure if the other 1950s piano versions from
6:29
James Frisken and Jorg Demas were out at the
6:33
same time as Glenn Gould's. Anyway. High Fidelity
6:37
assigned Nathan Broder to review the Glenn Gould
6:41
disc. And Nathan Broder was a highly regarded
6:45
musicologist who had a special interest in Bach
6:48
and Mozart. He lived from 1905 until 1967, and
6:55
one can say that in the late 1950s and early
6:58
1960s, he was basically High Fidelity's go -to
7:03
critic for all things Mozartian. kind of made
7:07
sense because Nathan Broder edited Mozart's Piano
7:11
Sonatas and Fantasies for publication in 1955.
7:15
And this was a very influential edition at the
7:19
time because Nathan Broder had discovered a lot
7:23
of errors and wrong markings, even in so -called
7:26
urtext editions. And he also was the editor of
7:30
the musical Quarterly. Anyway, let's see what
7:33
he says about Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations.
7:36
I don't think I'll read the entire review to
7:39
you, but I'll read big chunks of it. So Nathan
7:43
Berger says, a remarkable performance by a young
7:46
Canadian pianist whose name and deeds were hitherto
7:51
unknown to this reviewer. According to the jacket
7:55
notes he hails from Toronto and is in his early
7:59
20s, the Goldberg variations, it is perhaps superfluous
8:04
to say. are no easy nut for a performer to crack.
8:09
They demand far more than is usually supplied
8:12
in the way of musical insight, historical knowledge,
8:15
and fleet finger technique. These 30 different
8:19
elaborations of a profusely ornamented theme
8:23
are extremely varied. each one having a character
8:27
of its own pianists are usually liable to succumb
8:31
to the temptation to color them in a way that
8:34
is possible only on a piano and they are seldom
8:37
comfortable with the ornaments see that's a musicologist
8:41
talking there gould however realizes that this
8:45
is harpsichord music par excellence While he
8:49
gives each variation its character, he does not
8:53
superimpose any pianistic quote -unquote effects
8:56
within the course of the variation. And then
9:01
he talks about how Gould uses the Ralph Kirkpatrick
9:05
edition. Essentially, what's important is what
9:08
the performance sounds like. So Nathan Broder
9:11
goes on to write, everything is beautifully phrased
9:14
and even the most contrapuntal Sections are cleanly
9:19
and clearly articulated, and that is so true.
9:22
There is little or no pedal, that's true, and
9:27
consequently no smear. Well, maybe that's open
9:31
for debate, but, you know, essentially that's
9:33
true. The tempos chosen for some of the variations,
9:37
such as numbers 23 and 29, might strike one as
9:43
being a little too fast, but Gould plays them
9:46
with such virtuosity that they are almost convincing.
9:50
Similarly, variation 25, you know, that's the
9:53
minor key, quote -unquote, black. Pearl variation.
9:57
He says that that might seem to be a bit slow.
10:01
The line tends to sag in one or two spots, but
10:05
there is no denying the deep feeling that Gould
10:09
sustains throughout the section. Taken as a whole,
10:12
this is an extraordinary performance that leaves
10:16
one eager to hear what else this very gifted
10:19
player can do. I think that's a very clear and
10:23
succinct review. and very accurate as well. Another
10:27
writer for... high fidelity in those early days
10:31
was Raymond Erickson. He lived from 1915 until
10:35
1997. He started out as a staff writer for Musical
10:40
America in 1949, and then he went on to write
10:45
for the New York Times for many years. He started
10:48
off doing music criticism for the Times, and
10:51
then he became the editor of their Sunday Recordings
10:55
page, which is a page that long has not existed.
11:00
But he did contribute a lot to high fidelity.
11:03
Sometimes his style is not so specific or vividly
11:09
expressed as I would often like. But he generally
11:13
was a good and observant record reviewer. For
11:17
instance, I think you can get a sense of what
11:20
these particular recordings I'm going to talk
11:23
about sound like, judging from the reviews. For
11:26
example, I'm going to read his review of Geza
11:31
Anda's recording of the Liszt Sonata. This is
11:34
from, I think, the mid -1950s. And this is a
11:38
relatively short review, but I think it's pretty
11:40
concise and informative. Raymond Erickson says
11:45
about Geza Anda's recording of the Liszt Sonata,
11:49
which also has other works on the disc. He writes,
11:53
this young hungarian pianist turns in what is
11:56
probably the best interpretation of the lissanata
12:00
now available on l p discs the wide expressive
12:05
gamut is here as it is in the admirable version
12:09
of his countrywoman edith farnady So are the
12:13
power and drive of Alexander Yuninsky's forthright
12:17
performance. The completeness of Mr. Onda's technique
12:21
makes it possible for him to drive through and
12:24
push along some of the more heavily melodramatic
12:28
sections, which Miss Farnati cannot. A crystalline
12:33
touch and elegance of phrasing keeps his playing
12:37
free of bathos however lyric or sustained his
12:41
approach to the sweeter themes the other works
12:45
are played in comparable manner and the performance
12:49
of la campanella is a humdinger well i would
12:54
have i would have liked a little more specific
12:57
information here and there but i think basically
12:59
he says that you know he's a strong technician
13:03
and he can get through the really difficult barnstorming
13:07
parts that Edith Farnati, he says, has trouble
13:11
doing. Actually, she plays much better than he
13:14
gives her credit for, to be honest. But this
13:17
is a very useful and informative and concise
13:21
review. Also, High Fidelity's editor, Roland
13:25
Jalat, contributed occasional reviews that are
13:29
also perceptive and well -written. However, as
13:33
I was saying earlier, the most convoluted and
13:37
exasperating reviewer in the high -fidelity stable
13:42
was undoubtedly this person named C .G. Burke.
13:48
I have no idea what this C and the G stand for.
13:52
Maybe some of you know. But this was somebody
13:55
who obviously had knowledge and background, yet
14:00
try to unravel his prose. This is what C .J.
14:06
Berg has to say about a recording that came out,
14:10
I think on Philips, but it came out on the Epic
14:12
label in America. This is the recording with
14:15
Clara Haskell playing the concerto. Kershaw 271
14:21
of Mozart, the number nine in E -flat, and the
14:25
concert rondo number two in A major, Kershaw
14:29
386, with Paul Sascher conducting the concerto
14:34
and Bernard Palmgartner conducting the rondo.
14:36
Here's the review. It's just one paragraph. The
14:40
restraint which seems misplaced in concerto number
14:44
23, noted below, becomes an adornment in number
14:49
nine, played by the same participants. This bold
14:53
and inventive music is unfixed in temperament,
14:58
and the intimate, intense style manages to convey
15:02
the involvement of thought and feeling without
15:06
committing itself to a dominant aspect. Sage
15:11
playing, but neat and effective. admirable in
15:15
balance and disarmingly ostentatious with volume
15:20
low reproduction will be nice in detail for the
15:24
orchestra and entirely satisfactory for the piano
15:28
the short rondo is competently delivered oh god
15:34
how can i parse that i mean it would take me
15:38
hours to translate that that is just so vague.
15:42
I mean, you get a sense that he likes the performances,
15:45
but talk about convoluted style. If you think
15:51
that's bad, you should look at C .J. Burke's
15:54
review of Rudolf Ferkushny playing Beethoven,
15:58
and he begins the review with a poem, and this
16:02
must be the worst poem ever written in English.
16:05
I mean, this makes Rod McKeown look like T .S.
16:09
Eliot. Here, let me read it to you. Okay, this
16:12
is the recording with Rudolf Ferkushny playing
16:15
the Moonlight Sonata and the Pathetique Sonata
16:18
that came out on the Capitol label, and it was
16:22
reissued by EMI on CD in the 1990s. Anyway, the
16:27
review opens like this. Here's the poem. Still
16:31
glows the moonlight. glows and grows in leagues
16:35
of micro grooves as protocol behooves. What dog
16:40
would build a catalog without a pathetique? What
16:44
list so bare and bleak? That's how the review
16:49
starts. Can you believe that? And now here's
16:52
the review proper. Dispiriting as it is to contemplate
16:57
the 20 oddth of each, it must be admitted that
17:02
Both are justified by the high quality of play
17:05
and sound. The moonlight especially in the separate
17:10
clarity of bass and treble lines. Well, that's
17:13
actually something kind of specific and clear.
17:16
And in the respect given to its little center
17:21
movement. Okay. The carefully shaped adagio of
17:26
number eight with greater than usual prominence
17:29
in the second themes. is worth a laud worth a
17:35
laud l -a -u -d who uses that word anymore and
17:40
then the last sentence says living piano sound
17:44
what does that mean living piano sound as opposed
17:49
to dead piano sound I mean, does it mean it's
17:53
resonant? Does it mean it's opulent? Does it
17:57
mean that there's a lot of bass? Does it mean
17:59
there's a lot of room tone? I mean, what the
18:02
heck? At least you do get a sense that C .J.
18:05
Burke liked that disc, and there were a few points
18:09
made. Yes, that's true. But this kind of writing
18:12
style would not be accepted today. I highly doubt
18:16
it. Actually, my favorite example of C .J. Burke's
18:21
convoluted style is in his review that came out
18:26
the year before, 1955, of Hermann Scherchen's
18:30
accounts of Mozart's last two symphonies. Now
18:34
listen to this. The orchestra is presented not
18:38
in replica of public performance with a recognizable
18:42
panoramic character, but as if it were vertical.
18:47
with the instruments arranged for near equality
18:50
of distinctness and some readjustment of relative
18:55
force. I mean, what pretentious and ludicrous
19:02
use of the English language. I mean, basically
19:06
he's saying that the balances are rather skewed
19:10
in this recording. So why couldn't he say that?
19:13
This recording has skewed balances, like the
19:16
winds are too prominent, or the strings are too
19:18
much in your face, or this or that. But, like,
19:22
what the hell is he talking about? Fortunately,
19:25
by 1957 and 1958, C .J. Burke was more and more
19:32
out of the picture. And actually, Harold C. Schoenberg
19:36
stepped in. This was just a few years before
19:39
Schoenberg became the New York Times chief music
19:42
critic. And then by 1960, in high fidelity, my
19:47
late and dear friend Harris Goldsmith appeared,
19:51
and he truly raised the bar for the art of record
19:55
reviewing. And I always say that Harris, as well
19:59
as Mortimer Frank, were the writers I always
20:03
gravitated toward and whose styles I unabashedly
20:08
stole from. Whenever someone praises my own reviews
20:13
or even hates my reviews, I reply, well, that's
20:17
basically Harris Goldsmith talking through my
20:19
body. I mean, he was my role model. In other
20:23
words, no Harris, no Jed. Maybe there's a little
20:26
David Hurwitz in me, too. Although... I could
20:29
never be as brash or as bold as he can. Well,
20:32
maybe I can sometimes. I do find it interesting,
20:36
though, to go back and read some of the first
20:39
reviews of discs that have long been considered
20:42
iconic or points of reference. And I've provided
20:46
a link where you can find back issues of High
20:50
Fidelity magazine. And just browse through these.
20:54
I think you'll find it rather illuminating. informative
20:58
and maybe on occasion amusing. This is Jed Dissler,
21:03
and you've been listening to The Piano Maven,
21:05
your friendly podcast guide to piano recordings.
21:09
I have to take a break for a few weeks because
21:12
I'm going on tour in Europe again, so I'm going
21:17
to have some reruns from last year while I'm
21:21
away, and I hope you will enjoy those if you
21:24
haven't yet heard them. But I will be back at
21:27
the end of October with some fresh material.
21:31
Thanks so much for your patience and thank you
21:33
for your support and thank you for tuning in.
21:36
Be well.