Listening Habits

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Chris:
I haven't bought anything in a while, actually. Well, I did by a complete set of the Mozart Piano concertos, but it hasn't arrived yet.

Fidelio (Klemperer) is sitting in my CD player right now, though, and has been for the last three days.

[This message has been edited by Chris (edited December 15, 2002).]

Chris,
Can I 'jack' my own thread here? ;-) I am shopping for a set of Mozart Piano Concertos even as we 'speak', and am very interested to know what set you bought, and why? The only set I can find that is actually "Complete" is the Brendel et al set on Philips, part of the Complete Mozart Edition, and is a tad pricey ($135 US, 12 disks). It is the only one with #1-4 and the K 107 threesome that I can find. When I buy complete, I want complete, know what I mean? Is this really the only one, or have I overlooked one? And of course, performance is important too, who have you heard is great in this regard? Maybe you or another Mozartean out there can help me spend wisely.
There, out of the closet at last, ;-)))
Gurn

[Chris]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Chris,
Can I 'jack' my own thread here? ;-) I am shopping for a set of Mozart Piano Concertos even as we 'speak', and am very interested to know what set you bought, and why? The only set I can find that is actually "Complete" is the Brendel et al set on Philips, part of the Complete Mozart Edition, and is a tad pricey ($135 US, 12 disks). It is the only one with #1-4 and the K 107 threesome that I can find. When I buy complete, I want complete, know what I mean? Is this really the only one, or have I overlooked one? And of course, performance is important too, who have you heard is great in this regard? Maybe you or another Mozartean out there can help me spend wisely.
There, out of the closet at last, ;-)))
Gurn

I went with http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...music&n=507846this</a> one (Bilson/Gardiner/EBS). I have heard several of these, and they are wonderful. They do not include Nos. 1-4. Like you, when I want complete, I want COMPLETE. But given the nature of the Nos. 1-4 (they're pastiches, really), I think it makes sense not to include them. There IS a reason why so many sets exclude them; it's not just arbitrary. If you go through the trouble to make a complete set of the Mozart piano concertos, you don't leave out any just because you don't like them or don't think they're very good.

In any case, Bredel is a great pianist, but I think the Mozart piano concertos really need peiod instruments to sound right, and this set is an extremely well done period instrument set (let's face it, some sound horrible). So, that's what I suggest.

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Chris:
I went with http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...music&n=507846this</a> one (Bilson/Gardiner/EBS). I have heard several of these, and they are wonderful. They do not include Nos. 1-4. Like you, when I want complete, I want COMPLETE. But given the nature of the Nos. 1-4 (they're pastiches, really), I think it makes sense not to include them. There IS a reason why so many sets exclude them; it's not just arbitrary. If you go through the trouble to make a complete set of the Mozart piano concertos, you don't leave out any just because you don't like them or don't think they're very good.

In any case, Bredel is a great pianist, but I think the Mozart piano concertos really need peiod instruments to sound right, and this set is an extremely well done period instrument set (let's face it, some sound horrible). So, that's what I suggest.

Chris,
Thanks very much for the info. That is one of the sets I've been looking at, but knew little about the background. Also agree with the sentiment; complete is complete. Perhaps they are deemed too simple to bother with, but nonetheless, I want to hear them. Thanks you for your reply, I now have something to work with here.
Gurn

[Rod]

Originally posted by Chris:

In any case, Bredel is a great pianist, but I think the Mozart piano concertos really need peiod instruments to sound right...

A pity you cannot bring yourself to extend this very sensible logic to Beethoven Chris!


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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited December 17, 2002).]

[Chris]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Also agree with the sentiment; complete is complete. Perhaps they are deemed too simple to bother with, but nonetheless, I want to hear them.

I understand, but 1-4 are logically grouped with the others in name only. I really don't think they are the same type of work, and so do not belong in a complete set. It is much like the situation with Mozart's Symphonies No. 2 and 3. They're usually not included in complete sets of the symphonies. At first, I was reluctant to purchase the Hogwood/AAM set because of these omissions - because if it didn't have all the numbers, it wasn't really complete. But these symphonies, though fine works, were not really written by Mozart. Including them just to satisfy the numbers wouldn't really make sense, and would actually degrade the integrity of the set. Realizing this, I bought the set and it is one of the finest purchases I have ever made.

So, try not to think of the set as a set of numbers, but of a type of work. 1-4 can not really be considered part of this type of work (they not true original Mozart compositions, really). Why not just search them out on a seperate disc if you want to hear them? You will likely get much better quality overall if you do not limit yourself to the sets that include these works.

[Chris]

Originally posted by Rod:
A pity you cannot bring yourself to extend this very sensible logic to Beethoven Chris!

It is not logic, but my own ears. They sound better on period instruments. So, I will buy period instrument recordings. Beethoven does not, so I will buy modern instrument recordings. My Mozart collection is actually about half and half - I judge it on a piece by piece basis.

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Chris:
I understand, but 1-4 are logically grouped with the others in name only. I really don't think they are the same type of work, and so do not belong in a complete set. It is much like the situation with Mozart's Symphonies No. 2 and 3. They're usually not included in complete sets of the symphonies. At first, I was reluctant to purchase the Hogwood/AAM set because of these omissions - because if it didn't have all the numbers, it wasn't really complete. But these symphonies, though fine works, were not really written by Mozart. Including them just to satisfy the numbers wouldn't really make sense, and would actually degrade the integrity of the set. Realizing this, I bought the set and it is one of the finest purchases I have ever made.

So, try not to think of the set as a set of numbers, but of a type of work. 1-4 can not really be considered part of this type of work (they not true original Mozart compositions, really). Why not just search them out on a seperate disc if you want to hear them? You will likely get much better quality overall if you do not limit yourself to the sets that include these works.

Chris,
Well, that is exactly what I did, I got the 1-4 and K 107 on 2 separate disks by Murray Perahia on Sony. I had also seen the Complete Concertos by Perahia on Sony a couple of years ago but couldn't afford them at the time, and they now seem to be unavailable. I have some other stuff by him and like his style. They are modern instrument versions, but you know, that doesn't bother me much, even with Mozart. I like the way Sony does the sound on their disks (in the main), and have many L'Archibudelli recordings from them. Their Haydn Piano Trios are first rate, even when compared to the Beaux Arts Trio versions, which I prefer for Romantic Era works. Since 80% of my collection is Chamber Music, I guess that I have more trouble being discerning with orchestral works. Just don't have the ear to pick out the flaws that I hear so much about. Truly though, the only real gripe that I have with period instrument works is the tendency I hear to take things at a slower tempo than the modern works do, which is arguably more correct, but which is not necessarily euphonious to me. Different strokes, I guess.
Regards, Gurn

[Rod]

Originally posted by Chris:
It is not logic, but my own ears. They sound better on period instruments. So, I will buy period instrument recordings. Beethoven does not, so I will buy modern instrument recordings. My Mozart collection is actually about half and half - I judge it on a piece by piece basis.

If so, then why did Mozart compose so appropriately for the instruments of his time whilst Beethoven, totally failed in this respect? A point of particular interest considering he made his name as a piano virtuoso.


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



[This message has been edited by Rod (edited December 18, 2002).]

[Chris]

Originally posted by Rod:
If so, then why did Mozart compose so appropriately for the instruments of his time whilst Beethoven, uniquely amongst all the pianist/composers, totally failed in this respect?

Beethoven did not compose inappropriately for the instruments of his time. It just so happened that advances in the construction of instruments yielded instruments that his pieces sound better on. Mozart's pieces (often, but not always) gained nothing from this.

You suppose that this means that Beethoven failed in some respect, because he brought into reality a musical idea in a less-than-perfect manner. But this is obviously nonsense. It might make sense if Beethoven had some knowledge of future events, but he did not. He only knew what he had, and he did compose "perfectly" for that. He failed in nothing. It just so happened that instruments developed in a way that enhanced things for the style in which Beethoven composed and not the style in which Mozart composed.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Chris:
Beethoven did not compose inappropriately for the instruments of his time. It just so happened that advances in the construction of instruments yielded instruments that his pieces sound better on. Mozart's pieces (often, but not always) gained nothing from this.

You suppose that this means that Beethoven failed in some respect, because he brought into reality a musical idea in a less-than-perfect manner. But this is obviously nonsense. It might make sense if Beethoven had some knowledge of future events, but he did not. He only knew what he had, and he did compose "perfectly" for that. He failed in nothing. It just so happened that instruments developed in a way that enhanced things for the style in which Beethoven composed and not the style in which Mozart composed.

And yet B used effects that come more naturally to the Viennese action than todays. And we know he preferred a light responsive action. In my opinion certain works use the characteristics of the pianos of the day to such an extent that the pieces do not really work effectively, to MY ears, on the modern piano. It is this that initially made me consider the authentic 'movement' as a redress to the problem. Regardless of the structural soundness of the old pianos, it was these characteristics that B was making use of. One that immediately springs to mind is the Eroica vatiations - some sections of which simply never sound right regardless of who's playing. Even with op111 one has to be carefull! In recordings and live I get the impression the performer has to restrain him/herself at times - and rightly so as the modern piano's tone is too heavy for Beethoven's exuberance. If they don't the noise is too much and out of proportion.

To be honest I've demonstrated some of my Fortepiano cds to various pianos players, some excellent pros, and they have ALL accepted that the Schantz, or Walter or Graf produced a better effect.

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


[This message has been edited by Rod (edited December 18, 2002).]

[Joy]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Chris,
Well, that is exactly what I did, I got the 1-4 and K 107 on 2 separate disks by Murray Perahia on Sony. I had also seen the Complete Concertos by Perahia on Sony a couple of years ago but couldn't afford them at the time, and they now seem to be unavailable. I have some other stuff by him and like his style. They are modern instrument versions, but you know, that doesn't bother me much, even with Mozart. Truly though, the only real gripe that I have with period instrument works is the tendency I hear to take things at a slower tempo than the modern works do, which is arguably more correct, but which is not necessarily euphonious to me. Different strokes, I guess.
Regards, Gurn

I really enjoy Perahia's style myself. I love his interpretations of Chopin. The classical radio station here plays him a lot. I shall have to look into more of his CD's.

Joy

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Rod:
And yet B used effects that come more naturally to the Viennese action than todays. And we know he preferred a light responsive action. In my opinion certain works use the characteristics of the pianos of the day to such an extent that the pieces do not really work effectively, to MY ears, on the modern piano. It is this that initially made me consider the authentic 'movement' as a redress to the problem. Regardless of the structural soundness of the old pianos, it was these characteristics that B was making use of. One that immediately springs to mind is the Eroica vatiations - some sections of which simply never sound right regardless of who's playing. Even with op111 one has to be carefull! In recordings and live I get the impression the performer has to restrain him/herself at times - and rightly so as the modern piano's tone is too heavy for Beethoven's exuberance. If they don't the noise is too much and out of proportion.

To be honest I've demonstrated some of my Fortepiano cds to various pianos players, some excellent pros, and they have ALL accepted that the Schantz, or Walter or Graf produced a better effect.

Guys,
I wonder if in the course of this ongoing debate we are not overlooking some things that are germane to the discussion; namely, the evolution of the "piano" (by which I mean what we call keyboard instruments today, whether pianoforte or fortepiano or whatever) was at its greatest pace in Beethoven's lifetime, more than at any other time in its history. I read somewhere (Solomon?) that this was a cause of some consternation for B as he wanted the most progressive sound to match up with his work (my interpretation of his words) and was quite dissatisfied with most of the instruments available to him. He was very aggressive in trying and buying new ones. This tells me that he had some consideratio for what his music COULD sound like. It may not be the equivalent of knowing the future, but a man who could watch the bows of a string quartet and tell if they were playing his music correctly could certainly have the vision to know where his real instrument was going, and compose accordingly. IMHO.
Gurn
PS - This was also true to a much lesser extent with Mozart, one can certainly not compare the clavier of his childhood with the fortepiano of his maturity. Listen to K6, then to K378 and see if the music is equally fitted to the instrument at hand.

----"Historical argument that does not consider the context of the time is futile"--- Stephen Jay Gould

[Rod]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Guys,
I wonder if in the course of this ongoing debate we are not overlooking some things that are germane to the discussion; namely, the evolution of the "piano" (by which I mean what we call keyboard instruments today, whether pianoforte or fortepiano or whatever) was at its greatest pace in Beethoven's lifetime, more than at any other time in its history. I read somewhere (Solomon?) that this was a cause of some consternation for B as he wanted the most progressive sound to match up with his work (my interpretation of his words) and was quite dissatisfied with most of the instruments available to him. He was very aggressive in trying and buying new ones. This tells me that he had some consideratio for what his music COULD sound like. It may not be the equivalent of knowing the future, but a man who could watch the bows of a string quartet and tell if they were playing his music correctly could certainly have the vision to know where his real instrument was going, and compose accordingly. IMHO.
Gurn
PS - This was also true to a much lesser extent with Mozart, one can certainly not compare the clavier of his childhood with the fortepiano of his maturity. Listen to K6, then to K378 and see if the music is equally fitted to the instrument at hand.

----"Historical argument that does not consider the context of the time is futile"--- Stephen Jay Gould

Well there has probably never been a professional pianist who was not unduely fussy about the quality of pianos as their disposal. This happens just as much today. So of course it is not unusual by todays standards that B would idealy only want the very best models to play.

In his earlier days Beethoven did have pianos that he liked during his life time and he stated this himself in his consistant preference for the Streicher brand. Manufacturers were falling over themselves to offer him instruments made to his specification. His increasing ambivilance to the instrument increased with his deafness even though the instruments by then were technically and structurally much better than those of his youth.

Manufacturers are ALWAYS a few steps behind the performers. But I suggest that the Viennese manufacturers were not as far behind Beethoven as is traditionally claimed today, not by a long way.

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

[Suzie]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
[B]Curious if any of you (as I have) have developed any curious listening habits over the years...

I no longer have a long commute, but I do drive through town instead of taking the freeway to allow myself the most listening time. I do almost all my listening in the car. I am inhibited at home by persons less musically sophisticated and my classically piano trained boss turns off the good music, a nanosecond after she comes into the office in favor of 'classic rock'. How can this be?

I like to listen to a piece to death. Not as much as Chris. I'll break things up with The Monkees or Patsy Cline, but I'll listen to the same thing 3 times a day for a week or two.

Last Sunday I went to the annual 'Beethoven Birthday Bash' where op. 61 was featured. I had forgotten how much I love that piece. I was so exited that they were doing it and then ended up crying halfway through (Hopefully, the Master was not there laughing at me. I sometimes wonder if all that positive B energy pulls him in for a brief visit).

Anyhoo, op. 61 is the main dish since 12/15. I foist it upon anyone who dares get into my car. I also instructed the previous department where I worked to listen, which they dutifully did. God, I miss working upstairs. They listen to everything I tell them to, with a smile.

This morning, the 9th Symphony was tugging at me. I understand Santa Claus is bringing me tickets to hear the Seattle Symphony perform the 9th. I hope they get the tempo right.
S

[Rod]

[quote]Originally posted by Suzie:
[b]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
and my classically piano trained boss turns off the good music, a nanosecond after she comes into the office in favor of 'classic rock'. How can this be?

Well, I can understand your boss, given the average quality of classical 'music' played on Classic FM and BBC Radio 3 here in the UK. I think a significant proportion of it is utter garbage and an insult to the listener's intelligence. "Just 'cos it's got pipes and fiddles in it that don't necessarily mean its any good..".

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