Why is it that a galloping horse (which has four legs), is suggested in music by triplets, and trains (which are double-piston stroke engines) by four sixteenth notes?

Well, it looks as though Yo Yo Ma is again forging new connections between two worlds — this time between classical music and…Canadian politicians?

Publisher: EMI Records (1999)

Artists: Daniel Barenboim, Jacquelin du Pre and Pinchas Zukerman

Even in the digital age, the classical audiophile has a hard life. The acknowledged, tried-and-true virtuosos have retired, or died, and their lasting legacy consists of intangible memories of concert-goers and a scratchy records which can never be perfectly remastered. Of the many who aspire to greatness today, it is difficult to judge from a low-quality YouTube clip, or a thirty-second sound bite, the true quality of their recordings. In the long run, many who have promoted themselves successfully, and seemed to hold much promise, lose their sparkle and charm. So one makes assumptions based on past recordings and reputation as a guide.

We recently purchased a recording of the Beethoven Violin Sonatas and Tchaikovsky Piano Trio, featuring the above three artists. The sound quality is reasonable, although sometimes not as crisp and clear as we might desire. If one listens closely, it sounds as though the violin is placed closer to the left, and the piano is opposite, on the right. The Violin Sonatas have been amply recorded in the past, but each has its own character and flavour. This recording has more of the feel of chamber music, with violin and piano supporting and assisting each other, rather than violin dominating over the piano accompaniment. There is good reason for this, given the long shared history of these musicians, and Barenboim’s piano is clean and articulate, and a pleasure to listen to. While decent, Zukerman’s violin is sometimes faint and less stellar, lacking the engaging energy exhibited in other interpretations (compare with the Perlman/Ashkenazy recordings, 1974). As a result, this is a merely pleasant and somewhat surprising recording, but by no means a definitive interpretation.

The Tchaikosky piano trio is also somewhat disappointing. The audio quality is again quite reasonable. Both the violin and cello suit each other superbly, but in this instance, there is an indistinct quality to the piano, and quite possibly wrong notes. The fault does not lie solely on the performers, however; the composition’s quality and purpose fades markedly in the middle portion of the second movement, to the point where, more than once, your humble reviewers have simply turned off the track and listened to something better developed.

Finally comes the calculation of value. This collection was offered at 256kbps from iTunes, at a price of $25 (or somewhere in that vicinity). While pleasant, we do not listen to these recordings on a daily basis, and it is perhaps best streamed occasionally rather than purchased for closer study and inclusion into a permanent collection.

Recently iTunes released a compilation of Mozart’s piano concertos, as performed by Vladimir Ashkenazy and the Philharmonia Orchestra. It seemed like a good idea at the time — a good pianist leading a good orchestra. And it was Mozart — how bad could it be?

For a start, it is not really possible to sit down and listen to this collection all at once. In fact, the editorial team recommends against this feat. After the first hour or two, initial delight turns into boredom, then mild irritation as the unending trills and scales continue. This problem is more marked in the later concertos, which, unfortunately, all sound identical. The earlier concertos have a fresher feel, as if they were more carefully constructed. The later ones are frenetic, as though some disaster would happen if the cascade of notes halted. Not until now did I understand the Emperor’s comment in the 1984 movie Amadeus: “There are too many notes!”

One wonders why this collection of Mozart generates such boredom. Certainly Mozart was a musical prodigy, and he was capable of revolutionary ideas (the Dissonance string quartet, for instance). But maybe music was a little too easy: it is easier to write to a well-known formula than to innovate and face the inevitable criticism for something new and different. Certainly it is pretty at first, but it is not possible to listen to the these concertos and wonder why such a genius could generate such trite compositions.

Well, the video for the YouTube Symphony Orchestra’s performance at Carnegie Hall has finally been posted! On a Friday evening, in great need of entertainment (and perhaps enlightenment), there I went, with much anticipation of good music and good spirits.

Let me preface my comments by saying that this is a noble venture to broaden the appeal of classical music to the great masses. Certainly the orchestra will reach many around the world; maybe its contents will be appealing to new listeners. But it is not for refined palates.

The YouTube Symphony Orchestra will not be replacing professional orchestras, live concerts or professional recordings any time soon. Its problems are fourfold. First, the programming is questionable. The concert started a lacklustre piece that was supposedly written by Brahms, then some very odd 20th century percussion piece played on plastic bins, and then around the world. Second, the players, while reasonably adept for amateurs, are not professionals. At best their sound was sluggish and inoffensive. They lack the crisp timing and the general quality of instruments required in a serious orchestra. Their rendition of Wagner’s ‘Ride of the Valkryies’ conjured images of fat lolling women around a TV, rather than the fierce thundering warrior-maidens of Germanic legend. However, this is not the fault of the musicians; a few more days of rehearsal would have been helpful. Third, the sound quality fell below concert-level expectations. For an ensemble of 96, they should have produced a deafening sound. Instead I found myself straining to hear the grating of the strings, then wincing when I heard the false notes.

Fourth, and most disappointing, the production quality was amateur as well, with jerky animations and miscued video clips. In one instance, YouTube viewers were left staring at the darkened image of the conductor’s head, and missed out completely on another, soundless video which the conductor was watching. Given the hype and the backing institutions, I would have thought that more emphasis and thought would have been put into the production. Sadly, the production flaws detract from this marvellous convergence of so many musicians from different places. Ultimately all that was produced was a very well promoted YouTube video with a symphony orchestra.

Update: Here is the New York Times review on the YouTube Symphony Orchestra.

I stumbled across this link to the inaugural YouTube Symphony Orchestra, which will be playing at Carnegie Hall on April 15th. Young artists from around the world auditioned by submitting a video through YouTube. A committee selected the finalists, who were announced in March. Tomorrow they start rehearsals.

In an associated article featured in Time, YouTube (and its owners at Google) initiated this project, and they’ve managed to accumulate several well-respected symphony orchestras as sponsors. Hopefully it will shine a spotlight on classical artists and classical music in general, and bring together a new generation of previously disparate artists and music lovers in the digital world.

If you’re reading this blog, you’ve heard of iTunes and its competitors in the legal digital music industry, such as Amazon, eMusic, Deutsche Grammophon, etc. iTunes has switched from DRM (digital rights management), 128 kilobits per second MP3s to DRM-free 256 kbps AACs. Unfortunately the bump in quality and freedom from restrictions have come with a price: many pop tracks are now $1.29, rather than $0.99.

Being the hard-headed journalistic types, unswayed by rumour and hearsay, the intrepid editorial team at ClassicalWatch.com has investigated iTunes, and we are pleased to report that most classical tracks remain fixed at $0.99. Yes, even tracks with soulful artists in designer gowns and young men in tuxedoes. There are upsides to unpopularity.

Many Apple competitors also appear to have changed their pricing schemes. Due to laziness time constraints, the collection at other sites have not been assessed. If any readers would like to write in with their experiences with other sites, please let us know!

In case you didn’t know, Hilary Hahn is actually on twitter. Well, her fine violin containment unit is there, and it seems to have the inside scoop.

http://twitter.com/violincase

Violinist Hilary Hahn has always been active on the internet. She started her online journal many years ago, before blogging became de rigeur. Now she has a channel on YouTube where she interviews her peers and takes questions from fans.

Check it out. Though caution is advised, as sometimes knowing the performer’s music is a sufficient dimension.

Here’s an interesting article at the New York Times on music and medicine. To paraphrase, some researchers (pseudoresearchers?) claim that certain musical motifs, deployed appropriately, can be beneficial in regulating conditions such as anxiety, depression, insomnia, etc.

I recall a related story (no link, unfortunately) in which someone claimed that the iambic hexameter of Greek poetry had beneficial health effects. But let’s be honest, the ancient Greeks had a lot more physical activity as well, climbing mountains and rowing triemes and running marathons.