Haydn's Haus

[SonicMan46]

I just listened to one of those Hamelin's discs, but I felt it totally and irremediably unidiomatic. IMO, if the modern piano is the thing, Brendel (4 CDs) and Schiff (2 CDs) are by far better options than Hamelin... But, I know, that sale on Abeille Musique was irresistible. 

Now, Antoine has rather glibly dismissed M-A Hamelin in his performances of the Haydn Piano Sonatas - now I own probably a half dozen discs or more of him doing 19th & 20th century piano music (hard to beat!) and have seen him in person (kind of a John Henry driving railroad spikes but on the piano - he was phenomenal!) - thus, not a pianist to be 'thrown by the wayside' in his exploring an earlier century?

For the past few nights, I've been listening to the Haydn 'keyboard sonatas' on modern piano, both my Buchbinder 'complete' collection & the Hamelin 4 discs.  First, the Buchbinder recordings are quite well done - his performances are excellent, but the sound despite the mid-1970s recording dates is still not too bad - I'd agree w/ Jed Distler's Review HERE, i.e. not a bad choice for a 'box set', esp. if the price is right!

Now, Marc-Andre Hamelin has received a LOT of mixed comments on his performances of many of these works (4 discs!) - e.g. on Amazon, the first set received an overall 4* rating HERE w/ a lot of 5* admiriers, but a few 'unhappy campers' w/ lowly comments (I'm assuming that Antoine would be in that camp?).  But, there have been some superlative reviews from others - MusicWeb HERE and excellent Fanfare reviews (which I'll be glad to attach in another post for those interested).  Bottom line is that the Hamelin recordings are considered 'strong contenders' in the modern piano approach to these works!

Now, I'm currently doing my 3rd listening of Hamelin - I'm biased since I really like this 'Piano Hulk'! - he has to be seen to believed.  But, whether these performances are 'idiomatic' or not depends on what defines Haydn's style at the time; unfortunately, only Papa Joe could answer that question after listening to the many performers that have been already discussed in these works.  Hamelin brings a 'freshness' and his own personality to these compositions which I'm enjoying after multiple hearings.  Are his recordings for everyone?  I don't know - still love Brautigam - however, I would say that if one is looking for several or more discs of these works on a 'modern piano', Hamelin is a MUST listen - he may not be your preference but remains a force to consider - the DEBATE continues! 

   

[jlaurson]

SonicMan: If you like "Piano Hulk" in Haydn (unless you just mean MAH's  ridiculous skill & speed which I've once observed sitting diagonally behind him as he played Godowski-Chopin Etude Variations), you should check out Tzimon Barto's Haydn disc. http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2009/12/best-recordings-of-2008-almost-list.html.

To all Schornsheim-lovers (or haters, or neutrals).

Are there any questions you would like to ask her (have her asked)??

[Antoine Marchand]

Now, Antoine has rather glibly dismissed M-A Hamelin in his performances of the Haydn Piano Sonatas - ...

Now, Marc-Andre Hamelin has received a LOT of mixed comments on his performances of many of these works (4 discs!) - e.g. on Amazon, the first set received an overall 4* rating HERE w/ a lot of 5* admiriers, but a few 'unhappy campers' w/ lowly comments (I'm assuming that Antoine would be in that camp?).  But, there have been some superlative reviews from others - MusicWeb HERE and excellent Fanfare reviews (which I'll be glad to attach in another post for those interested).  Bottom line is that the Hamelin recordings are considered 'strong contenders' in the modern piano approach to these works!

Now, I'm currently doing my 3rd listening of Hamelin - I'm biased since I really like this 'Piano Hulk'! - he has to be seen to believed.  But, whether these performances are 'idiomatic' or not depends on what defines Haydn's style at the time; unfortunately, only Papa Joe could answer that question after listening to the many performers that have been already discussed in these works.  Hamelin brings a 'freshness' and his own personality to these compositions which I'm enjoying after multiple hearings.  Are his recordings for everyone?  I don't know - still love Brautigam - however, I would say that if one is looking for several or more discs of these works on a 'modern piano', Hamelin is a MUST listen - he may not be your preference but remains a force to consider - the DEBATE continues! 

Well, I suppose this is just another demonstration -if it were necessary- about how different the tastes can be sometimes, even among people who generally love similar music and artists. It is not doubtful for me that Dave is a sensitive Haydnian, but I would swear in any court, at any time, at any place, that Hamelin plays the most unidiomatic and insensitive Haydn that I have listened to in a long time and, IMO, the stylistic testimony of our beloved Haydn would be not necessary to prove it; even the brief excerpts on Amazon are an eloquent proof IMO.

But this debate will be short in my case because Hamelin's performances cause on me an instantaneous aesthetic rejection: his Haydn is not my Haydn at all (or more exactly I don't recognize Haydn there) and I am not planning to hear another disc of this cycle. 

BTW, my impressions about him are almost exactly the same expressed by the "unhappy campers" on Amazon, especially the reviewer J. Renouf.   

[mc ukrneal]

The whole Hamelin 'controversy' is actually quite fascinating. I generally love most of what HAmelin does. I am not particularly familiar with Haydn's sonatas, so I snatched the first set up quickly to check them out. I found my mind wandering and I never could seem to get through them. I don't know enough about these works yet to know why, but I can say that I have picked up Pletnev and Ax, and I really liked both much better. I found myself engaged and wanted repeat listenings. Sometimes a particular approach just doesn't click for some reason.

I recenly picked up the Jando set to experience more of them (the sonatas).

[SonicMan46]

Thank you gentleman for your comments on Haydn & Hamelin - now as should be clear, I do prefer my 'period' performances and will likely have Brautigam spinning when I want to hear these works; although I've not done enough comparison listening between Buchbinder & Hamelin, the former is likely more to my taste, if a modern piano is to be used; but still does not distract from the latter's skills and aplomb on that modern instrument, even if misdirected in Haydn.

But for those still 'wondering' about what performances to hear, buy, or avoid, I've attached the two reviews of the Hamelin sets from Fanfare; two different reviewers and as expected different opinions.  This is starting to sound like arguing over what kind of chili or barbecue one may prefer - but that's another thread! 

[mc ukrneal]

Thank you gentleman for your comments on Haydn & Hamelin - now as should be clear, I do prefer my 'period' performances and will likely have Brautigam spinning when I want to hear these works; although I've not done enough comparison listening between Buchbinder & Hamelin, the former is likely more to my taste, if a modern piano is to be used; but still does not distract from the latter's skills and aplomb on that modern instrument, even if misdirected in Haydn.

But for those still 'wondering' about what performances to hear, buy, or avoid, I've attached the two reviews of the Hamelin sets from Fanfare; two different reviewers and as expected different opinions.  This is starting to sound like arguing over what kind of chili or barbecue one may prefer - but that's another thread! 

Perhaps not a discussion for here, but what terrible reviews. The first spends all this time on extraneous stuff. Perhaps interesting, perhaps not, but has no seeming connection to the review. And the second really ticked me off. Can anyone say BIAS! I hate it when reviewers start with stupid comments like Haydn is inappropriate for modern pianos and such things (as if there is only way to hear them). Ok, I'll stop ranting now... I'll interupt my Svendsen symphony with a Haydn Piano Concerto!  That should put a swing in my step...

[Gurn Blanston]

Perhaps not a discussion for here, but what terrible reviews. The first spends all this time on extraneous stuff. Perhaps interesting, perhaps not, but has no seeming connection to the review. And the second really ticked me off. Can anyone say BIAS! I hate it when reviewers start with stupid comments like Haydn is inappropriate for modern pianos and such things (as if there is only way to hear them). Ok, I'll stop ranting now... I'll interupt my Svendsen symphony with a Haydn Piano Concerto!  That should put a swing in my step...

So how does all this musing apply to Hamelin? One listens happily to the continuous outpouring of beautiful tone; it's mesmerizing, but I have trouble finding Haydn in it. Sonatas written from 1773 to 1789 are represented here (the Andante and Variations is from 1793). When these 11 pieces are heard more or less consecutively, it is not always easy to distinguish between the sonatas, sometimes even between middle and late works. As piano playing, these performances are beyond criticism; as Haydn, they are a bit pale. Hamelin is not alone in this phenomenon: major artists who span the piano repertoire (Ax, Pletnev, Schiff, Lang) are seldom as interesting in Haydn as 18th-century specialists—Richter was an exception to any rule. Another factor (which I've seen expressed elsewhere but cannot recall by whom) is that a performance that must be cautious for some reason—Haydn on a grand piano—is seldom as interesting, as satisfying, as one in which the artist is able to go all out—Haydn on a fortepiano.

ukrneal,
I am going to guess that this is the review you are talking about, yes? The way I read this is that he is saying that what is considered to be the strength of the modern piano is an unfortunate handicap here, and so players who excel in other repertoire don't show at their best. I don't see this as unbridled criticism as such, but rather as an attempt to find an explanation for a phenomenon that (I agree) exists. Yes, you can hold back a modern piano, but when you do, you lose some of your and its ability to play freely and to its strength.

I am not one who would disallow anyone from listening to what they enjoy, as anyone who has known me here for 7 years will attest. But I feel that if you want to get the most out of these works, go with the period instruments, played by a specialist in that rep.

[mc ukrneal]

ukrneal,
I am going to guess that this is the review you are talking about, yes? The way I read this is that he is saying that what is considered to be the strength of the modern piano is an unfortunate handicap here, and so players who excel in other repertoire don't show at their best. I don't see this as unbridled criticism as such, but rather as an attempt to find an explanation for a phenomenon that (I agree) exists. Yes, you can hold back a modern piano, but when you do, you lose some of your and its ability to play freely and to its strength.

I am not one who would disallow anyone from listening to what they enjoy, as anyone who has known me here for 7 years will attest. But I feel that if you want to get the most out of these works, go with the period instruments, played by a specialist in that rep.

Yes that one. I don't think the instrument is a handicap to any piece of music. He is starting out the review by basically saying that the modern piano can never equal (let alone surpass) instruments of the time. I cannot agree with that.  I happen to be in the opposite camp from you in that I believe the best  way to get the most out of these works is to play them on modern instruments (specialist or not makes less difference to me), not period instruments (most of which I dislike on sound alone). However, like you, I would never impose that view on others and would want you (and others) to enjoy whatever you like (and who cares what others think). There are plenty of instruments, versions, interpretations, etc. to satisfy virtually everyone these days. I just don't like how he seems to impose his view on me (which is that I shouldn't listen to it on modern pianos). 

And since we both love Haydn (perhaps I was a bit late getting there - better late than never), all is well in the world...

[Sergeant Rock]

I feel that if you want to get the most out of these works, go with

Brendel.

Sarge

[DavidRoss]

To all Schornsheim-lovers (or haters, or neutrals).

Are there any questions you would like to ask her (have her asked)??

Nah...just tell her "thanks" for the lovely Haydn organ cto recordings!  (Wish I liked her tinny pianoforte as much as Brautigam's fuller-bodied one!)

[Gurn Blanston]

Brendel...

Sarge

...should play a better piano.

[DavidRoss]

Yes that one. I don't think the instrument is a handicap to any piece of music. He is starting out the review by basically saying that the modern piano can never equal (let alone surpass) instruments of the time. I cannot agree with that.  I happen to be in the opposite camp from you in that I believe the best  way to get the most out of these works is to play them on modern instruments (specialist or not makes less difference to me), not period instruments (most of which I dislike on sound alone). However, like you, I would never impose that view on others and would want you (and others) to enjoy whatever you like (and who cares what others think). There are plenty of instruments, versions, interpretations, etc. to satisfy virtually everyone these days. I just don't like how he seems to impose his view on me (which is that I shouldn't listen to it on modern pianos). 

And since we both love Haydn (perhaps I was a bit late getting there - better late than never), all is well in the world...

Ber in mind that I'm new to Haydn's "Piano" Concerto recordings, and that I generally dislike the tinny pianoforte sound but otherwise have a strong preference for HIP period instrument performances of baroque and classical music.  I'm thirlled by Dave's recommendation for Brautigam, for this recording seems to have it all, the transparent texture of a period appropriate sized orchestra with correct balances among instuments, but with the fuller, richer sound of Brautigam's instrument compared to those I'm used to (including Immerseel's)--and, of course, musicality in spades.

For the sake of proper balance, a modern piano demands a larger orchestra, but this must be managed judiciously lest the light, open, clear textures be overwhelmed by outsized forces.  It can be done, however, witness Schiff's Mozart concerto recordings on modern instruments with the Camerata Salzburg under Sandor Vegh--comparing favorably in this regard with Immerseel/Anima Eterna's recordings of the same repertoire.

[Florestan]

All this debate (fortepiano vs modern piano) reminds me of a humorous story about the great French actor Jean_Mounet-Sully. He was rehearsing some 17-th century tragedy which required him to take an oath on an old Bible. He is presented with a contemporary one. "No way! The play says an old Bible, give me an old Bible!" he shouts. After half an hour, he is handed a Bible from 1685. "Here you are, monsieur: an old one!". To which he retorts: "But back then it was new!".

[mc ukrneal]

Ber in mind that I'm new to Haydn's "Piano" Concerto recordings, and that I generally dislike the tinny pianoforte sound but otherwise have a strong preference for HIP period instrument performances of baroque and classical music.  I'm thirlled by Dave's recommendation for Brautigam, for this recording seems to have it all, the transparent texture of a period appropriate sized orchestra with correct balances among instuments, but with the fuller, richer sound of Brautigam's instrument compared to those I'm used to (including Immerseel's)--and, of course, musicality in spades.

For the sake of proper balance, a modern piano demands a larger orchestra, but this must be managed judiciously lest the light, open, clear textures be overwhelmed by outsized forces.  It can be done, however, witness Schiff's Mozart concerto recordings on modern instruments with the Camerata Salzburg under Sandor Vegh--comparing favorably in this regard with Immerseel/Anima Eterna's recordings of the same repertoire.

This sort of statement confusese me, in particular the bit about the 'fuller richer sound'. Since I don't have this version, I went online to check it out (to make sure I had the right instrument in mind, as there are many variations).  What I heard was exactly the opposite of what you describe: cold, pingy, and hollow. How can this be that we hear the same thing and yet hear something so completely different? I don't know how to explain it.

I also don't understand why you say a modern piano demands a larger orchestra. People use them in solos, trios and quartets, orchestra, etc. and I've never heard anyone complain about a lack of balance among the isntruments.

[Sergeant Rock]

...should play a better piano.

  ....I have a feeling Brendel wouldn't agree with you. There is a reason the fortepiano went extinct 

But I enjoy the sound of the early instruments too, and acknowledge that in some cases they can give us something the composer intended which is difficult, even impossible, to duplicate on the modern grand. Has this interesting article been linked to already, here or in one of the HIP threads? It from slate.com, entitled: "In Search of Lost Sounds: Why you've never really heard the 'Moonlight' Sonata"

http://www.slate.com/id/2245891?obref=obinsite

Sarge

[mc ukrneal]

  ....I have a feeling Brendel wouldn't agree with you. There is a reason the fortepiano went extinct 

But I enjoy the sound of the early instruments too, and acknowledge that in some cases they can give us something the composer intended which is difficult, even impossible, to duplicate on the modern grand. Has this interesting article been linked to already, here or in one of the HIP threads? It from slate.com, entitled: "In Search of Lost Sounds: Why you've never really heard the 'Moonlight' Sonata"

http://www.slate.com/id/2245891?obref=obinsite

Sarge

Very interesting, although I don't buy some of what he's selling. Still, quite useful - thanks for posting.

[Florestan]

Very interesting, although I don't buy some of what he's selling. Still, quite useful - thanks for posting.

Namely what? (For the record, I'm on your side. )

[Gurn Blanston]

  ....I have a feeling Brendel wouldn't agree with you. There is a reason the fortepiano went extinct
Sarge

No, really, there isn't. The fortepiano evolved into the pianoforte so that it could be played louder and in bigger venues. This was NOT so that Haydn's music could be played louder and in bigger venues, it was so the music that was being written concurrently with the development could be done. The instrument and the music always were perfect for each other. I'm sorry if you don't buy into that, and as I said earlier I think everyone should listen to the music they like played on whatever they like to hear it on. People who like period instruments needn't be snobbish about it, neither should those who think that their modern candidate is clearly superior be. Neither one is "clearly superior" to anyone but oneself.

[Gurn Blanston]

Very interesting, although I don't buy some of what he's selling. Still, quite useful - thanks for posting.

Namely what? (For the record, I'm on your side. )

I just want to say, without insulting anyone or hurting any feelings, that as far as matters of fact go, it makes no difference whether any particular one of us buys into it or doesn't do. The statements he makes concerning whether a modern piano can do some of the things that a fortepiano can do simply don't rely on anyone's opinion for validation.

Of course, any statements concerning whether something is more or less agreeable in sound or "authentic" can be squashed at will. They are all opinion and his are no more valid than yours or mine, thus, valueless.

[Florestan]

Gurn, do you have any relevant information about what was the intended audience for Haydn's piano sonatas?