Steven Isserlis (cello) and Kirill Gerstein (piano) Photo by Kim P. Witman/Courtesy of Wolf Trap |
Brahms, Cello Sonatas, S. Isserlis, S. Hough |
Robert Battey, A characteristically furious Isserlis, at his best and most middling (Washington Post, January 28) Steve Smith, Echoes, 21 Years Apart, in a Homage to Brahms (New York Times, January 28) |
It seems a bit contradictory to acknowledge Isserlis' point that gut strings were in common use until relatively recently, but also suggest, if a bit indirectly, that they are not up to the sonic demands of 19th century rep. (Robert Battey, in the review you link to, comes right out and says it-- "the music calls for more power and clarity than Isserlis’s equipment has.") I suspect Isserlis would find such statements frustrating and wrong-headed and, as someone with one foot in the HIP world, I would sympathize with him. Further thoughts?
ReplyDeleteTrue enough. Of course, the piano that goes with the gut-stringed cello would not be quite as powerful. Anyway, my impression is not that Isserlis strings with gut because of any HIP interest. He just likes the sound, but he does not, it seems to me, really modify his sense of dynamics to suit the range possible with gut strings. He loves the singing sound and then tries to juice the loud parts, with sometimes unsatisfying results. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteYes, I would agree that Isserlis is not particularly HIP-minded; I just meant that this is a point of commonality. And to be honest, I haven't heard him live so I'm not sure that I have a great sense of his handling of the dynamic range. (Recordings can obviously be very deceptive.) I certainly have no problem with a reviewer who doesn't like what a given musician does with his/her instrument or who admits that they simply prefer the sound of the more modern instrument or ensemble or what have you. It's the implication that the modern timbre and volume is what the music is *supposed* to sound like-- as though that is what the composer really imagined, despite the resources available to them-- that rubs me the wrong way. I don't mean to make too much of this. Your reference was really fairly mild and indirect; I was just surprised to see it from someone who generally writes about historical performance issues with quite a bit of knowledge and enjoyment. And perhaps that other review set me off a bit.
ReplyDelete