Modern Concert Pianists

[Peter]

Originally posted by Cetto von Cronstorff:
Objection! This was an AMATEUR orchestra.

And it was Schubert's 8th.

[This message has been edited by Cetto von Cronstorff (edited 06-07-2006).]

Firstly you should know that the distinction between amateur and professional was not what it is today. Secondly you should know that most orchestras included 'amateur' players and thirdly you should know that the Great C major symphony in English speaking countries is referred to as the 9th. It was the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde who considered the work too long and difficult.


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Well you're not really answering the points made in the article or for that matter my own. Never mind, I confess am prepared to stick my neck out on an issue, whereas, with further respect, getting a critical performance assessment of any kind out of your good self has long proved a difficult task.

I think Beethoven was a little unlucky with the orchestras at his disposal, but I'm sure they had a hell of a lot less rehearsal time than we offer today, and the music was new then.

Concerning the piano one wonders why so much of the best keyboard music ever written was inspired at a time when apparently nobody was capable of playing the piano properly. A mystery indeed.

Beethoven himself complained that the poor execution of his works was enough to make him lose the will to compose anything! If you really imagine that the general standard of playing was higher then than now, what can I say? The level of teaching was generally poor - few knew how to teach the piano and that is evident by the ghastly practises that are recounted by countless 19th century students, such as practising with a coin on the wrist or the use of all manner of horrendous contraptions designed to strengthen fingers, which in reality permanently crippled many. The use of the arm, weight and relaxation were not properly realised until much later. Only the truly exceptional musician survived this lamentable state of affairs and found their own technical solutions naturally - they were a minority.

The reality is that if most of the HIP enthusiasts were able to hear a genuine early 19th century performance, they would in most cases be appalled at what we would consider totally inadequate by today's standards.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Beethoven himself complained that the poor execution of his works was enough to make him lose the will to compose anything! If you really imagine that the general standard of playing was higher then than now, what can I say? The level of teaching was generally poor - few knew how to teach the piano and that is evident by the ghastly practises that are recounted by countless 19th century students, such as practising with a coin on the wrist or the use of all manner of horrendous contraptions designed to strengthen fingers, which in reality permanently crippled many. The use of the arm, weight and relaxation were not properly realised until much later. Only the truly exceptional musician survived this lamentable state of affairs and found their own technical solutions naturally - they were a minority.

The reality is that if most of the HIP enthusiasts were able to hear a genuine early 19th century performance, they would in most cases be appalled at what we would consider totally inadequate by today's standards.

Why are you concentrating only on my comments? I ask once more, what do you think of the artice, a pretty damning piece in itself?

We are not really in a position to comment accurately on the standards of performance then, certainly you cannot generalise solely based on Beethoven's experience. Beethoven's works were obviously more advanced that those the orchestras in question were used to, sometimes it seems the problem was more in the direction than the playing. If you read about Handel you find anecdotes about poor performances very rare (I can think of only one case off the top of my head) despite many of the pieces being truely epic in scale, even by Beethoven standards - but Handel hired specialist musicians for his orchestra, boosted by presumably lesser mortals and unemployed military bandsmen. So in theory I do not think B's music was unplayable at the time, it's just, as I mention above, it needed more than the typical Viennese theater-house band. Or these bands need more time than they were given to rehearse the music.

Concerning the piano are you saying that nobody before Clara Schumann knew what they were doing? I am not just talking about performance, but also composition. It is interesting you point out to the effect that only the 'naturals' in those days could excel at the piano, I have no problem with that, that is exactly what I am saying about todays performers. It seems nothing has changed despite the alleged advancement in education techniques. From a Beethovenian perspective we have more performers in the public domain today who can deal with the technical necessities - but no way so much the musical (ie the artistic assessment) and forget altogether the compositional. it's a complicated subject but the system has to take at least some responsability for all this, before it's too late (the article implies it is already too late!).

We are still getting as many lame Beethoven performances today as no doubt Beethoven experienced himself, probably a lot more, even when we have the advantage of 200 years 'rehearsal time'. You still get technical mistakes from orchestras and pianists, I hear them at every concert I have ever been to, but I am not concerned primarily with that type of perfection.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 06-07-2006).]

[Rod]

PS Peter I was trying to email you the details for op135 but was getting bounced using my Yahoo emailer, did you get my email from Hotmail?

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by Peter:

Firstly you should know that the distinction between amateur and professional was not what it is today.

Okay. The difference between the members of the amateur orchestra of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde and professional musicians in the 1820s was that the amateurs all had other regular jobs while the professionals made a living playing their instruments. You really should read the recollections that Leopold von Sonnleithner (one of these amateurs) published in 1863.

Originally posted by Peter:

Secondly you should know that most orchestras included 'amateur' players

This is false. The professional orchestras of the five Viennese theaters only consisted of professional players. And the other orchestras were amateurs per definitionem until the VPO was founded by Otto Nicolai. Even the great flutist Ferdinand Bogner who tought at the conservatory kept his job at the court chamber because he only received a honorarium for his teaching.

Originally posted by Peter:

and thirdly you should know that the Great C major symphony in English speaking countries is referred to as the 9th.

Wrong again. The ignorance of the uninformed masses canmnot be taken as an argument to suppress the facts. If you look into the English edition of the Deutsch Verzeichnis or into the English literature that was published in the last three decades (McKay, Newbould, Gibbs, Brown, et al) you will see that Ernst Hilmar's discoveries have been accepted "in English speaking countries". That people don't read books is a different issue.

Originally posted by Peter:

It was the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde who considered the work too long and difficult.

It was the AMATEUR orchestra of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde which considered the work too difficult. And that's exactly what it was back then: too difficult to be mastered by amateurs.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Why are you concentrating only on my comments? I ask once more, what do you think of the artice, a pretty damning piece in itself?

We are not really in a position to comment accurately on the standards of performance then, certainly you cannot generalise solely based on Beethoven's experience. Beethoven's works were obviously more advanced that those the orchestras in question were used to, sometimes it seems the problem was more in the direction than the playing. If you read about Handel you find anecdotes about poor performances very rare (I can think of only one case off the top of my head) despite many of the pieces being truely epic in scale, even by Beethoven standards - but Handel hired specialist musicians for his orchestra, boosted by presumably lesser mortals and unemployed military bandsmen. So in theory I do not think B's music was unplayable at the time, it's just, as I mention above, it needed more than the typical Viennese theater-house band. Or these bands need more time than they were given to rehearse the music.

Concerning the piano are you saying that nobody before Clara Schumann knew what they were doing? I am not just talking about performance, but also composition. It is interesting you point out to the effect that only the 'naturals' in those days could excel at the piano, I have no problem with that, that is exactly what I am saying about todays performers. It seems nothing has changed despite the alleged advancement in education techniques. From a Beethovenian perspective we have more performers in the public domain today who can deal with the technical necessities - but no way so much the musical (ie the artistic assessment) and forget altogether the compositional. it's a complicated subject but the system has to take at least some responsability for all this, before it's too late (the article implies it is already too late!).

We are still getting as many lame Beethoven performances today as no doubt Beethoven experienced himself, probably a lot more, even when we have the advantage of 200 years 'rehearsal time'. You still get technical mistakes from orchestras and pianists, I hear them at every concert I have ever been to, but I am not concerned primarily with that type of perfection.

Your comments are always worth concentrating on Rod!

I don't think a lot of the article and I wouldn't have thought most of it would concur with your own opinions. I don't know who Martin Kettle is, but it seems to me a typical article from the older generation who always think things were best in their day. There are many exciting young talents around - the lack of interest in piano recitals has nothing to do with lack of ability. It is not just the piano, but classical music in general that is suffering from poor audience attendance and this is down to many factors which we have discussed here before.

You say we have more pianists capable of the technical requirements which is true, but not so the musical - but remember that in order to produce an artisitic performance you have to have the necessary technical facility in the first place.

Of course I'm not saying before Clara Schumann they didn't know what they were doing, I'm saying that in general technique was not properly understood. Beethoven's playing was considered revolutionary because he was one of the first to realise the potential of the Fortepiano. This was at the end of the 18th century after nearly 100 years of the instrument's invention. Composers such as Chopin and Liszt developed technique even further.

No I haven't received your email.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Peter]

Originally posted by Cetto von Cronstorff:
It was the AMATEUR orchestra of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde which considered the work too difficult. And that's exactly what it was back then: too difficult to be mastered by amateurs.

It is not false that the theatre orchestras were frequently augmented with musicians from the 'amateur' ranks - this happened in the case of Beethoven's 9th.

Your rather pedantic argument and typically rude tone miss the original point I was making, which was that performances of those times due to many factors were not in general of the calibre expected today - the famous fiasco at the Dec 22nd 1808 concert is a good example.



------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Your comments are always worth concentrating on Rod!

I'll take that as a compliment! That last post of mine took, for me, a hell of a long time despite its relatively short size (compared to some of the epics you get here). There are many issues and angles to consider in all this.

Originally posted by Peter:

I don't think a lot of the article and I wouldn't have thought most of it would concur with your own opinions. I don't know who Martin Kettle is, but it seems to me a typical article from the older generation who always think things were best in their day. There are many exciting young talents around - the lack of interest in piano recitals has nothing to do with lack of ability. It is not just the piano, but classical music in general that is suffering from poor audience attendance and this is down to many factors which we have discussed here before.

You are quite right I don't agree with a lot of this article, in other parts I would be more severe, in other parts still I think he is ignorant of the real issues. But I agree there is a problem today, and even todays fortepianists are more often lame than brain from my experience, even when they have the ideal instrument in their hands.

Originally posted by Peter:

You say we have more pianists capable of the technical requirements which is true, but not so the musical - but remember that in order to produce an artisitic performance you have to have the necessary technical facility in the first place.

True but the balance of emphasis seems wrong. And on a personal note, from my own experience I am frustrated whith the obsession with the Romantic piano composers amongst the musically educated. Frankly I think this music is nothing more than divertimenti for the middle classes, and should be put to one side until real piano music is better understood.

Originally posted by Peter:

Of course I'm not saying before Clara Schumann they didn't know what they were doing, I'm saying that in general technique was not properly understood. Beethoven's playing was considered revolutionary because he was one of the first to realise the potential of the Fortepiano. This was at the end of the 18th century after nearly 100 years of the instrument's invention. Composers such as Chopin and Liszt developed technique even further.

No I haven't received your email.

Well the technique may be developed but still I don't like a lot of what I hear. I think I've said my fill on this. I will try another method to get you the info, I have had trouble before emailing you in particular. Hope you don't have me marked as a spammer!?


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 06-07-2006).]

[Rod]

Peter I've sent you the file via mysharefile.com, so don't delete the email, its not spam!

Meanwhile here is a Brucie Bonus for Mozart fans, free downloads on authentic instruments:
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/mostlymozart2006


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by Peter:
It is not false that the theatre orchestras were frequently augmented with musicians from the 'amateur' ranks -

But that's not what you claimed. You claimed that 'most orchestras included 'amateur' players' which is wrong as far as 95% of their performances on a regular and commercial basis are concerned. The premiere of Beethoven's 9th in 1824 was a special case because this symphony was difficult, needed a huge cast and the performance was an academy for the benefit of a private person. The performance was made possible because the Viennese theaters performed only plays that night so that the musicians would be able to take part in the academy in the Kaerntnertortheater. Believe me, there actually WAS a big difference in the technical ability of the players and singers involved. The first desks were all given to professionals. The Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde was not in a position to hire professionals for a performance of a new symphony from one of their members.

Your rather pedantic argument and typically rude tone (snip)

First you provide me with an arrogant listing of 'what I should know' and as soon as it turns out that other people beside yourself also know a little bit, you accuse me of applying a 'rude tone'. Pardon me, but this is amusing.

[This message has been edited by Cetto von Cronstorff (edited 06-07-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Peter I've sent you the file via mysharefile.com, so don't delete the email, its not spam!

Meanwhile here is a Brucie Bonus for Mozart fans, free downloads on authentic instruments:
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/mostlymozart2006

I'm sorry Rod but my email account was full so could you send it again.


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
I'm sorry Rod but my email account was full so could you send it again.

Done

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[atserriotserri]

After quite a long time (at least for me) I'm back to the forum.

Originally posted by robert newman:

...But in my view, modern concert pianists have become boring. Very few of them have anything very interesting to say, at least to me.

In my opinion, there is something not analysed by the writer (and I beg your pardon if I've overlooked any commentary by any of you) as well as by those of you replying, which is: How many records of a single piece are in the market, we own, have listened at? ... Or how many concerts have we attended?
I think that because of the sedimentation of generations of performers, it's harder to feel surprised.

...But then I only have to put on a CD by Schnabel to know that I'll never be bored by him, at any rate.

We all have records that for a reason or another are more special for us, remind us of something or whose music or performance are closer to us. And of course we have our preferred pianists. A single example is not indicative.

I merely believe that piano recitals - and piano recordings - used to be far more rewarding than they have become today. Is this objectively the case; and if so, why?

As I said, I guess is a personal issue. HE remembers the recitals or recordings were more rewarding. But perhaps on that time he ripped off those recitals, who knows...

There can be no real dispute that the age of the pianistic "lion" - the age of Liszt and Rachmaninov - is dead. It died with Vladimir Horowitz in the same month that the Berlin wall fell. It was the end of the era of the pianist as star, an era in which pianists could be seen as demons possessed by brilliant and magical technical skills.

He should not pay attention only at the "cons", but also at the "pros" of the situation he describes. We could say that the "flawless" interpretation has also taken to criticise some indulgent or narcissistic performances by some pianists, (among others Horowitz himself), not accepting what were called "personal renditions of the score" just because the pianist was famous and technically gifted or different to others.

Provided that one can't stop time, is clear that year after year the physical link with the past is smaller, but those pianists "of the past" are not swept aside, there are reeditions, remasterings, etc... that despite he says that "have not helped", indeed those help young people to know performances of the past, to compare them with present pianists, and ultimately, if one loves the music to have a wider perspective to stablish a love/not love list and compare performers, something that 40 years ago I guess was not so easy and/or affordable to do.
As an example, my girlfriend's grandmother gave us some things when we moved to our house; among them was his husband's record collection. Those are in pristine condition and she told us stories of them smuggling them from France since weren't easily available (nor cheap, of course) in Spain at that time. I surprised her mentioning that I owned the remastered cd version of one of those records (Cziffra playing Lizst's hungarian rhapsodies), and not mentioned that the price was 5 €.

Perhaps he should talk more to his grandsons...

As for the discussion over the "excesses" of technique, I don't feel qualified enough to discuss that issue with you, being very interesting all remarks made.

[PDG]

Originally posted by PDG:

Originally posted by Cetto von Cronstorff:
Objection! This was an AMATEUR orchestra.

And it was Schubert's 8th.

Actually, it was originally Schubert's 7th. After his 6th, the C major was incorrectly recorded as no.7. The "Unfinished" was much later catalogued as no.8. Then, even more years later, the "Great" symphony was discovered to have been composed after no.8. But rather than re-number no.7 as no.8, and no.8 as no.7 (since the B minor no.8 was by then famous), it was decided (but not on penalties) instead to give no.7 the whole new identity of no.9.

Turn me on, dead man......(Michael knows.....)

[This message has been edited by PDG (edited 07-02-2006).]

[PDG]

I'd like to acknowledge the contribution made in the modern CD, digital era to Jeno Jando (for Naxos). I've met the man. I submit that he, more than any other classical pianist, has introduced the piano music of Beethoven to more listeners, universally, than anyone else.