Recordings That You Are Considering

[M forever]

It seems clear that this was his contribution to Stürm und Drang

Stürm?

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Stürm?

Gürn meant to write Sturm.

[Harry]

I felt the same for many many years, tried Uchida and Schiff and sampled many others.
Things only clicked when I heard it on a fortepiano in a HIP recording. So, there's hope. 
Try some Brautigam on BIS, you'll see.

Personally I would leave my shelf without Uchida's Mozart sonatas, but I believe I'm in a minority there.

It's not in a appropriate Classical style, nor Romantic, nor late-Romantic, but in a kind of artifically perfect, "objective" post-Romantic style. Mozart in marble. Sorry for the rant, as you've guessed by now - I really don't like it.

Q

Not the only one Que, although Uchida has many qualities, it would never enter my home, or land in my cd player.
So not on my shelf either.

[Florestan]

Dave, this isn't a lecture, it's just an observation. You have to listen to classical era music (especially keyboard sonatas) with different ears and expectations than you do later music. By and large, it isn't intended to convey great emotion, or paint pictures, it is simply intended to entertain, to display some mastery of rhetoric, to exhibit purity of form and lack of verbosity. Displays of virtuosity were considered vulgar and coarse. Expectations for a grander experience than that are sure to be dashed.

This may be true. But then why I do I feel poetry, melancholy, romance, nostalgia a.s.o. when listening to Mozart's piano sonatas (or indeed his whole chamber music output)? I think that had Mozart's music been only "intended to entertain, to display some mastery of rhetoric, to exhibit purity of form and lack of verbosity" it would have slipped into oblivion, just as zillion tons of music composed in the Classicism's timeframe and meeting these criteria have.

[Que]

Dave, this isn't a lecture, it's just an observation. You have to listen to classical era music (especially keyboard sonatas) with different ears and expectations than you do later music. By and large, it isn't intended to convey great emotion, or paint pictures, it is simply intended to entertain, to display some mastery of rhetoric, to exhibit purity of form and lack of verbosity. Displays of virtuosity were considered vulgar and coarse. Expectations for a grander experience than that are sure to be dashed.

This may be true. But then why I do I feel poetry, melancholy, romance, nostalgia a.s.o. when listening to Mozart's piano sonatas (or indeed his whole chamber music output)? I think that had Mozart's music been only "intended to entertain, to display some mastery of rhetoric, to exhibit purity of form and lack of verbosity" it would have slipped into oblivion, just as zillion tons of music composed in the Classicism's timeframe and meeting these criteria have.

I missed that excellent observation by Gurn before!   And it does not only applies to what to expect of Mozart's music, but also to performances of that music.
I think we're talking about form here, the musical rhetoric used, the idiom. Not about the emotions that can be evoked in the listener as a result, because surely Mozart's music is emotionally rich and rewarding but in an indirect way - it shouldn't be imposed onto the musical language when performing. Unfortunately "milking" Mozart for (Romantic) emotions in performance has been common place - his music has been grossly misunderstood till a few decades ago.

Q

[Florestan]

I missed that excellent observation by Gurn before!   And it does not only applies to what to expect of Mozart's music, but also to performances of that music.
I think we're talking about form here, the musical rhetoric used, the idiom. Not about the emotions that can be evoked in the listener as a result, because surely Mozart's music is emotionally rich and rewarding but in an indirect way - it shouldn't be imposed onto the musical language when performing. Unfortunately "milking" Mozart for (Romantic) emotions in performance has been common place - his music has been grossly misunderstood till a few decades ago.

Q

Q, please explain me what "grossly misunderstanding music" means. In my opinion, the response of each performer to a specific work is heavily dependent on her / his personality, tastes and (musical) education. A really great musical composition is not a dead thing, fixed forever in the aestethical frames of the time it was composed, outside of which it loses its significance*. Each performer adds to the written notes something of his own musical style and insights and this is not, for me, a bad thing at all. The musical world today is overwhelmingly diverse. I don't think there is only one right way to play Mozart, and all other are at fault. Any listener is entitled to choose the style of performance that best suits him but to proclaim it as THE right way to the exclusion of all others is not warranted in any way.

*(If that were true, then the best way of enjoying Mozart's music is while drinking champagne, flirting with a Countess and claptrapping with a dozen of other persons,  as well as fulfiling the inescapable pre-requisite: being an aristocrat)

[Harry]

*(If that were true, then the best way of enjoying Mozart's music is while drinking champagne, flirting with a Countess and claptrapping with a dozen of other persons,  as well as fulfilling the inescapable prerequisite: being an aristocrat)

O, that is really good, where can I join up my friend...I am eager you know!

That said I think it is as you say, the way you appreciate Mozart's  music is highly personal, and what you feel is even more a question of subjective interpretation. As I said last when I talked about Mozart's Violin concertos played by Mutter and aided by Karajan, hardly a authentic performance, it nevertheless perfectly told me the story behind it. So there is no fixed notion of how you should play Mozart. The guy would have loved the massive forces that the 19th century produced, and as long as it makes you appreciate the composer than there is nothing wrong with that. In this context there can be no grossly misunderstandings.

[Que]

Q, please explain me what "grossly misunderstanding music" means.

To me, the things I described before that statement.

In my opinion, the response of each performer to a specific work is heavily dependent on her / his personality, tastes and (musical) education. A really great musical composition is not a dead thing, fixed forever in the aestethical frames of the time it was composed, outside of which it loses its significance*.

To a certain extent I can agree with that, but I feel an effort to get to know the musical idiom in which the music was written pays large dividends, hence my liking of HIP performances. But to state the obvious: feel free to reject that notion or HIP altogether, or to like both - it's clearly up to personal preferences.

Each performer adds to the written notes something of his own musical style and insights and this is not, for me, a bad thing at all. The musical world today is overwhelmingly diverse. I don't think there is only one right way to play Mozart, and all other are at fault.

Even when played in the musical language that tries to reproduce historical practices in the best way possible (HIP) there are quite distinctive personal styles, which wholly natural: performing musicians all have their own personal perception of the music, HIP or no HIP.

Any listener is entitled to choose the style of performance that best suits him but to proclaim it as THE right way to the exclusion of all others is not warranted in any way.

Every comment I make about music is totally personal in nature and very subjective. Please let me emphasize that I'm not trying to deny any listener his personal right to have different preferences. Not now, not ever. (I'm wondering why does this always have to spelled out here at this forum? It seems pretty obvious.)

Q

[Florestan]

[I feel an effort to get to know the musical idiom in which the music was written pays large dividends, hence my liking of HIP performances.

Let's take the case of the Baroque. Most (if not all) composers would be astonsihed in the highest degree to see that:

1. Their music is performed in large concert halls where audience sits still and stiff.
2. Their music is performed exactly as written in scores.
3. Their music is regarded as something more than either entertaining or instructing.
4. Their manuscripts have been searched for and catalogued.


Two cases in point:

A. Vivaldi's concertos have been written for his famous all-girl orchestra at L'Ospedalle delle Pieta. It was his job description to provide new pieces at a constant pace and he obliged dutifuly. These concertos were written to allow those girls to display their mastery of instruments in concerts aimed mainly at the pride of the aristocratic and high-bourgeois audience who were their fathers and were forgotten the next day. He never ever thought that the 20th century aestethic ideas will regard those concerts as something more than that.

B. Bach's cantatas were composed because his job description was to provide them for the divine service and he obliged dutifuly. He never ever thought that the 19th or 20th century aestethic ideas will take them out of their context and perform them to a non-Lutheran, non-worshipping audience assembled for the sake of the music itself.

The ideas of music as more than a tool for entertaining or instructing the upper classes, of dedicated concert halls, of orchestras performing for a large, socially mixed audience, of performers making careers by and for themselves --- that is, the musical world in which we breathe today --- were completely alien until the rise of Romanticism. As Thomas Mann (through Adrian Leverkuhn's mouth) very aptly put it, the main achievement of Romanticism is that it took music out of its municipal fanfare state and integrated it in the general intellectual circuit of the time. If we, middle-class as we are, go today to Baroque music concertos offered in concert halls by professional ensembles is not because, but in spite, of the Baroque aestethics and practice. Actually, we act in the most Romantic manner.

HIP performance? Perfect, no problem with that. But performance is not enough, if you really want to experience Baroque music in its period context. You also need "HIP" mentality --- and that is lost forever.

As for Mozart, I too think that he would have relished massive forces and grand pianos and wouldn't have stuck to tiny princely Kappellen or fortepianos and harpsichords.

This is not to say that HIP is useless, God forbid! But the problem has many facets. For instance: is Beethoven, who constantly complained about the poor quality of the fortepianos and proclaimed that his music is for the future, really serviced by performing his music HIP?

[MN Dave]

I felt the same for many many years, tried Uchida and Schiff and sampled many others.
Things only clicked when I heard it on a fortepiano in a HIP recording. So, there's hope. 
Try some Brautigam on BIS, you'll see.

Maybe I will, Q. 

[Haffner]

I may have heard Mozart first but Beethoven sort of grabs you by your lapels and pulls you away from anyone else.

I feel that way often, but to be a bit more specific; Beethoven's late string quartets pull me away from pretty much any other music from that genre. I'm really weird, because I tend to prefer Mozart and Haydn's Piano Sonatas to most of Beethoven's, and any of their string quartets to any of the early Beethoven up until op.59.

Even weirder, from a symphonic perspective I seem to be more an admirer of Mozart's Jupiter, Mahler's entire symphonic catalogue, and Bruckner 's 4th to 9th over all the Beethoven symphonies besides the obvious 9th (oh heck throw in the 7th and 8th just for giggles).

So I'm really strange.

[MN Dave]

So I'm really strange.

You're telling us something we don't know? 

[Haffner]

You're telling us something we don't know? 

[BorisG]

A. Vivaldi's concertos have been written for his famous all-girl orchestra at L'Ospedalle delle Pieta. It was his job description to provide new pieces at a constant pace and he obliged dutifuly. These concertos were written to allow those girls to display their mastery of instruments in concerts aimed mainly at the pride of the aristocratic and high-bourgeois audience who were their fathers and were forgotten the next day. He never ever thought that the 20th century aestethic ideas will regard those concerts as something more than that.

"Aimed mainly at the pride of the aristocratic and high-bourgeois audience who were their fathers and were forgotten the next day."

Their fathers? Please explain.

"He never ever thought that the 20th century aestethic ideas will regard those concerts as something more than that."

He? Vivaldi?

[Florestan]

"Aimed mainly at the pride of the aristocratic and high-bourgeois audience who were their fathers and were forgotten the next day."

Their fathers? Please explain.

The fathers of the girls in the orchestra.

"He never ever thought that the 20th century aestethic ideas will regard those concerts as something more than that."

He? Vivaldi?

Yes.

[BorisG]

The fathers of the girls in the orchestra.



Yes.

References, please. This is new to me.

The historical accounts I have read over the years, point to these girls as orphans or runaways, with no family ties.

Also, I have read nothing that says or infers that Vivaldi didn't take his music and musicians seriously. Maybe you are saying something else here. Please clarify. Thanks.

[Gurn Blanston]

References, please. This is new to me.

The historical accounts I have read over the years, point to these girls as orphans or runaways, with no family ties.

Also, I have read nothing that says or infers that Vivaldi didn't take his music and musicians seriously. Maybe you are saying something else here. Please clarify. Thanks.

Well, I'm sorry to burst this particular bubble, since the girls have been rather euphemistically portrayed for so long, but they weren't orphans, they were the bastard daughters of people wealthy enough to afford long term housing for them. So we can be quite sure that their Dads were around for an Adagio or 2 over the years, no doubt wearing those cool Venetian masks...

[BorisG]

Well, I'm sorry to burst this particular bubble, since the girls have been rather euphemistically portrayed for so long, but they weren't orphans, they were the bastard daughters of people wealthy enough to afford long term housing for them. So we can be quite sure that their Dads were around for an Adagio or 2 over the years, no doubt wearing those cool Venetian masks...

Is that just blah, blah, blah, or do you have some references? 

[Gurn Blanston]

Is that just blah, blah, blah, or do you have some references? 

I'm not home to cite the books I have on it, but you can Google it easily (I just did) and find any number of references to the fact that the 4 Ospedales each had their own particular "clientele", and that Vivaldi's was mainly for illegitimate girls. They were not all of noble birth (as Rod Corkin will be pleased to know), certainly, but many were. Check it out.

[MN Dave]

I'm not home to cite the books I have on it, but you can Google it easily (I just did) and find any number of references to the fact that the 4 Ospedales each had their own particular "clientele", and that Vivaldi's was mainly for illegitimate girls. They were not all of noble birth (as Rod Corkin will be pleased to know), certainly, but many were. Check it out.

Yeah, Gurn! Is it BLAH BLAH BLAH?