Beethoven Piano Concertos....

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Rod:
No way! NO WAY HOSAY! But then I've heard things you have never heard. But even then you see resorting to Tchaikovsy and Mendelssohn especially as an improvement??

I would have been terribly disappointed not to see this post! In this respect, Rod, I completely agree with you. In terms of musicality I prefer any of the Beethoven 5 to what is out there. But in terms of virtuosity there are many others out there that would do the trick. But virtuosity is not a sign of musical superiority.

I like very much the other concerti mentioned by the various composers, but I find that going back to Beethoven's is like coming home.

[Chris]

Originally posted by DavidO:
My favorite recording of the Piano Concerto No. 5 by Friedrich Gulda with the Vienna Phil conducted by Maestro Szell (my favorite Beethoven conductor, all told). It was recorded live in 1966 & is available on the Andante label, along with a really cool video of the same performance (as well as Bach's Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue).

Szell's Beethoven is great. My favorite recording of the Emperor is also conducted by Szell, with Leon Fleisher as the soloist. I also love Szell's recordings of Beethoven's symphonies.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
I would have been terribly disappointed not to see this post! In this respect, Rod, I completely agree with you. In terms of musicality I prefer any of the Beethoven 5 to what is out there. But in terms of virtuosity there are many others out there that would do the trick. But virtuosity is not a sign of musical superiority.

I like very much the other concerti mentioned by the various composers, but I find that going back to Beethoven's is like coming home.

And yet if I hadn't said it, who else here would have?! It's scary to think how this place would rapidly descend into mediocrity should I keep my big mouth shut. And for sure it will happen if I do, because it has happened in the past when I have been incommunicado for more than a few days.

Concerning the concertos it is interesting that Chris refers to the notes on paper as the sole criteria for assessment. How can this be done without considering the performance factors too? On paper it doesn't say that the Fritz piano on my recording from 1810 sounds to my mind better suited to the task than a modern Steinway for example. Then there are issues of tempo, phrasing etc.

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

[Fidelio]

Anyone heard the new recordings by Barry Douglas and the Camerata Ireland?

Comments?

------------------
Fidelio

Must it be.....it must be

[Rod]

Originally posted by Frankli:
Not me!
Beethoven I liked from the age of 13 on. It took me 10 years more to understand and hear that there is nothing "neutral" to Mozart. But in Mozart it all happens on a different level, musically and psychologically. I think that Beethoven quite understood Mozart's greatness. And part of Beethoven's greatness is that he searched and found his own way.

[This message has been edited by Frankli (edited 09-25-2006).]

Concerning my buying habits, I assure you I am not one of those who buys every new recording. Some pieces of Beethoven I have only heard one recording and that was enough for me. It sounds right so I stick with it. For example I have only heard two versions of Op132 in 20 years as a B enthusiast, because the first i heard is near perfect, the second I bought only because the disk had another item on its programme I was interested in. I've stated my position on the concertos and Mozart enough for this chain.

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

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Rod:
And yet if I hadn't said it, who else here would have?! It's scary to think how this place would rapidly descend into mediocrity should I keep my big mouth shut. And for sure it will happen if I do, because it has happened in the past when I have been incommunicado for more than a few days.

Concerning the concertos it is interesting that Chris refers to the notes on paper as the sole criteria for assessment. How can this be done without considering the performance factors too? On paper it doesn't say that the Fritz piano on my recording from 1810 sounds to my mind better suited to the task than a modern Steinway for example. Then there are issues of tempo, phrasing etc.

I might have said something; I've not been as available for posting here as I would like to in the past few days myself.

Don't get too bothered about the place descending into mediocrity. Eventually everyone has to come "home" anyway--it's just a journey "out there", but for a brief moment.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
I might have said something; I've not been as available for posting here as I would like to in the past few days myself.

Don't get too bothered about the place descending into mediocrity. Eventually everyone has to come "home" anyway--it's just a journey "out there", but for a brief moment.

I hope you are right, but we always have our fair share of 'away' fans here!


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

[HaydnFan]

Well, I suppose you can count me as an "away" fan, I really don't care...because what I have said I will say again...from what I have heard, Beethoven is superior only in the art of symphony. With Piano Concerti, Mozart excels (again, my opinion might change). With other concerto forms, I would again, argue for Mozart. I prefer Haydn's religious music to most else...

...Haydn and Mozart are the Dynamic Duo with Schubert as side-kick.

...and I would have cut short the last six weeks of Beethoven's life so that Schubert could live for 10 more years...there, I said it. I know that Rod hates me now, haha.

[Rod]

Originally posted by HaydnFan:
Well, I suppose you can count me as an "away" fan, I really don't care...because what I have said I will say again...from what I have heard, Beethoven is superior only in the art of symphony. With Piano Concerti, Mozart excels (again, my opinion might change). With other concerto forms, I would again, argue for Mozart. I prefer Haydn's religious music to most else...

...Haydn and Mozart are the Dynamic Duo with Schubert as side-kick.

...and I would have cut short the last six weeks of Beethoven's life so that Schubert could live for 10 more years...there, I said it. I know that Rod hates me now, haha.

I think you hate yourself enough for all of us.

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by HaydnFan:
With Piano Concerti, Mozart excels (again, my opinion might change). With other concerto forms, said it. I know that

I would say Haydnfan that if that pile of cds hasn't yet been listened to you can hardly judge the Beethoven piano concertos. I know I recommended chronological order, but perhaps you should jump straight in with no.4! The Mozart concertos are indeed great - I don't see the need for this continued (and pointless) competition.

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

[HaydnFan]

Exactly, I cannot say that Beethoven was not as great in absolution, because I have not listened to enough yet. Perhaps I will eventually believe that Beethoven is king of the world!

However, my remarks were in response to other positings which determine that Beethoven is better than any other, which at the moment, I don't believe to be true. Even though I have not heard everything, it does not make my opinion invalid. As I said, I am open to hearing other things and am open to changing my mind.

In regards to B's piano concerto No. 4, I went straight to listening to this one and I did not wholly enjoy it...there were some wonderful passages but as a whole, I still prefer Mozart and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

Lastly, I agree that the arguing back and forth about which composer is best is destined to go nowhere. I think we can all agree that Mozart and Beethoven are completely different and neither composer is "better" or "worse". Of course, this does not prevent one from preferring the music of one or the other...

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
I would say Haydnfan that if that pile of cds hasn't yet been listened to you can hardly judge the Beethoven piano concertos. I know I recommended chronological order, but perhaps you should jump straight in with no.4! The Mozart concertos are indeed great - I don't see the need for this continued (and pointless) competition.

Haydnfan is arguing with himself at this point. I said above 'I've stated my position on the concertos and Mozart enough for this chain.'


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

[Frankli]

Originally posted by Rod:

Concerning my buying habits, I assure you I am not one of those who buys every new recording. Some pieces of Beethoven I have only heard one recording and that was enough for me. It sounds right so I stick with it. For example I have only heard two versions of Op132 in 20 years as a B enthusiast, because the first i heard is near perfect, the second I bought only because the disk had another item on its programme I was interested in.

So it never happens to you that you have a really nice recording of some work, but then all of a sudden are blown away by another one? And how does the growing of your own knowledge of Beethoven or the music, and the mere fact that you change over the years anyhow, influence your taste? I certainly love many other performances than I did 10 years ago.
Besides, sometimes a performance is good in one respect and not so good in another. Which makes that each of these recordings make me show another aspect of the same piece.
Concerning op. 132, I love the Alban Berg Q for their brilliance. I love the slow Fitzwilliams for their precision in details. I love the LaSalle Q for the way they deal with the emotional aspect. I love the Quartetto Italiano for their classical approach. I love the Quatuor Mosaiques for their gorgeous sound. To just mention some of my favorites.
How to judge which one is better? They cannot be compared.

[This message has been edited by Frankli (edited 09-26-2006).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Frankli:
So it never happens to you that you have a really nice recording of some work, but then all of a sudden are blown away by another one? And how does the growing of your own knowledge of Beethoven or the music, and the mere fact that you change over the years anyhow, influence your taste? I certainly love many other performances than I did 10 years ago.
Besides, sometimes a performance is good in one respect and not so good in another. Which makes that each of these recordings make me show another aspect of the same piece.
Concerning op. 132, I love the Alban Berg Q for their brilliance. I love the slow Fitzwilliams for their precision in details. I love the LaSalle Q for the way they deal with the emotional aspect. I love the Quartetto Italiano for their classical approach. I love the Quatuor Mosaiques for their gorgeous sound. To just mention some of my favorites.
How to judge which one is better? They cannot be compared.

[This message has been edited by Frankli (edited 09-26-2006).]

I am only blown away when a perfect 'modern' interpretation is superceded when I get my hands on a perfect 'authentic' interpretation. There may be more than one recording that is perfect for each piece, but I don't need them all personally.

So far I am pretty unbending in my taste. The recording of Op132 is by the Fitzwilliam Quartet, a relatively early aquisition of mine. But it's not authentic, the concept of recording authentic quartets by Beethoven is still in its infancy for some reason. From the late quartets I only have op135 performed this way, a bad effort by the Eroica Quartet.

The Quator Mosaiques do have a lovely sound but their tempi are awfully slow with Op18.

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



[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 09-26-2006).]

[Frankli]

Originally posted by Rod:

So far I am pretty unbending in my taste. The recording of Op132 is by the Fitzwilliam Quartet, a relatively early aquisition of mine. But it's not authentic, the concept of recording authentic quartets by Beethoven is still in its infancy for some reason. From the late quartets I only have op135 performed this way, a bad effort by the Eroica Quartet.

Fitzwilliam is authentic in one respect. When you listen while reading the score, you'll notice that they try to play it just as it is, and they pay attention to the tiniest detail. For example they are the only ensemble that I have ever heard, which play the first pianissimo figure (two same notes connected with a bow) in op. 133, right after the Overtura, just as it was written down: not as one note, but as two, connected with a legato, sounding like an echo. Small but important detail!
Oh well. Here is that detail: http://www.frank.dds.nl/Etc/Fuge_suspir.mp3 (starts very soft).
And besides, because of their slow speed, it's easier to follow the music.
I agree about the Eroica Quartet. Btw on their cd there is also op. 74 and 95.

The Quator Mosaiques do have a lovely sound but their tempi are awfully slow with Op18.

Yes they do the same with Haydn and Mozart. But they articulate extremely well, while most quartets rush through the notes. The classical string quartet was strongly associated with conversation, and that's why I don't mind if the tempi are a bit slow. I even wonder if these aren't exactly the right tempi.
In their op. 132 (live recording from the radio), which is not as slow as Fitzwilliam, the timbre of the instruments works very well with the magical slow movement, where Beethoven explores pure sound.