Metal. Mostly old school metal lately like Ozzy Osbourne and Dio.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
- Member Since: April 6, 2009
- Posts: 680
- Member Since: June 27, 2005
- Posts: 34002
- Member Since: September 13, 2006
- Posts: 4508
- Member Since: October 15, 2008
- Posts: 13995
- Member Since: June 19, 2008
- Posts: 891
- Member Since: May 30, 2003
- Posts: 666
Still have love for A Tribe Called Quest, Pete Rock Gorrillaz, DJ Shadow, Soundgarden and Linkin Park. Sometimes its Jazz fusion from Pat Metheny and a slew of old hip hop, but...ever since I got into Jungle and Drum & Bass 13 yrs ago, I haven't really moved onto anything else.
No genre or artist is perfect but there are a LOT of diamonds in the rough.
- Member Since: August 25, 2004
- Posts: 16175
- Online Now
For the Third movement "trio" repeat: Harnoncourt and the Chamber Orchestra of Europe also does the repeat of the whole trio, while Tafelmusik Baroque Orchestra under Bruno Weill does not. They are two HIP ensembles, although Harnoncourt/COE probably more so. I understand where you are coming from, but I prefer not having the repeat of the full trio. It is not notated in the scores I am seeing (should get a "real" score and not off IMSLP to confirm), and I think repeating it disrupts the internal drama/narrative LvB put into the piece. I think having the full repeat of the trio diminishes the brilliance of LvB connecting the movements and adding more weight to the fourth movement. Either way, the brilliance of the symphony is that it is really a unified symphony. It is not 4 separate pieces combined into one with key relations. Regardless, it would be interesting to know what edition Harnoncourt/Gardiner used.
For the repeat of the exposition in the 4th movement, I tend to agree with you. There is no reason to ignore the repeat.
I forgot about Norrington's fifth which also has the repeat and is also historically informed. Don't care for it as much as Gardiner's, though. I've had a listen to some of Harnoncourt's Beethoven and it sounds good. I like his third, though I don't think anything will displace Jordi Savall's as my favorite for now, but you can never have too many interpretations.
The repeat is notated in the autograph score according to wikipedia, but it's not unlike Beethoven to change his mind. I don't really agree that having the repeat subtracts from the weight of the fourth movement, if anything I think it adds to it, but y'know different strokes and all that jazz. I guess I can see how impressing the palette of C major (and everything it signifies musically in the drama of the piece) on the ear too frequently just before the transition from the third movement to the fourth can diminish the impact that moment creates, but the symphony has been veering towards the light ever since the second movement. It's certainly not a deal breaker, since I obviously don't play out that extramusical scenario in my head when I listen to the piece. I do think the symphony is great musical storytelling (without being programmatic), so I don't think it's totally irrelevant, but I'm not thinking of something like the hero of light overcoming the prince of darkness when I listen to the scherzo, or something silly like that. Besides, I'd miss out on some really great performances like Kleiber's if I got that anal about it. If for no other reason for the repeat, the trio is so good it deserves to be heard twice. The exposition repeat of the fouth movement is a different matter entirely. The beginning of the repeat remains as impactful as the beginning of the movement and removing it is like hacking off an appendage or something; it doesn't feel complete.