Topic: Diabelli Variations

[FideLeo]

I've never warmed to Batterby's performances.  Changing the instrument is okay - the problem is the pianist.

Sometimes the problem can be faulty reception. 

[FideLeo]

to call pianists like Schnabel, Serkin, Rosen, and who knows how many others "generic,"

I like Schnabel, but others are quite "generic" to these ears!   That goes to answer your "interpretation/hardware" (a false dichotomy if there is ever one)  question also. 

[Don]

Sometimes the problem can be faulty reception. 

How long have you had this problem?

[FideLeo]

Performing Beethoven and Haydn on period instruments and tinkly fortepianos is so…yesterday.

While listening to classical music is so...last century and before?  

[FideLeo]

How long have you had this problem?

The question is for you, my friend. 

[Don]

The question is for you, my friend. 

Given your ridiculous comment about generic-sounding pianists, the question is in your court.

[FideLeo]

Given your ridiculous comment about generic-sounding pianists, the question is in your court.

Well I don't find it ridiculous, so why should the question be in my court? 

[(: premont :)]

Performing Beethoven and Haydn on period instruments and tinkly fortepianos is so…yesterday.

I see no reason why we - of all ages - should glorify our own.

The next step might happen to be, that the music of yesterday is so.. old fashioned.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Well I don't find it ridiculous, so why should the question be in my court? 

Because it is ridiculous, whether you recognize as much or not. The posts above have shown quite clearly that among modern pianists who have recorded the Diabellis, there is considerable distinction in the playing styles of such artists as Schnabel, Pollini, Mustonen, Anderszewski, Rosen, the Serkins, et al.

It is somewhat reassuring to hear you like Schnabel, but while of course the interpretation/hardware question is a false dichotomy, your signature and other comments here (Oh give me a fortepiano recording anyday!") lead me to believe you are firmly in the HIP camp above all - while I and probably some others here are not as dogmatically bound to either modern or HIP performance as you seem to be.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I see no reason why we - of all ages - should glorify our own.

The next step might happen to be, that the music of yesterday is so.. old fashioned.

The next step beyond that might be to perform Shakespeare only in outdoor replicas of the Globe Theatre, with boy actors in the female roles, standing room for the "groundlings" in the middle of the pit, Elizabethan costumes, and Elizabethan accents (which supposedly sound more than anything like the Appalachian speech of the southeastern USA). After all, if we insist on HIP Beethoven, why not HIP Shakespeare? Surely the sole goal of interpretation should be to reproduce the conditions and practices of the past.

[(: premont :)]

The next step beyond that might be to perform Shakespeare only in outdoor replicas of the Globe Theatre, with boy actors in the female roles, standing room for the "groundlings" in the middle of the pit, Elizabethan costumes, and Elizabethan accents (which supposedly sound more than anything like the Appalachian speech of the southeastern USA). After all, if we insist on HIP Beethoven, why not HIP Shakespeare? Surely the sole goal of interpretation should be to reproduce the conditions and practices of the past.

In principle you are right, but I would ask for a reasonable balance. I think you have to distinguish between the musically important measures (choice of instrument, style of playing) and the musically unimportant measures. I would e.g. never ask anyone to wear a wig when playing Händel, just for the sake of authenticity, since wigs have got no musical importance at all.

[Don]

Well I don't find it ridiculous, so why should the question be in my court? 

If there's a basic complaint about early 20th century pianists, it's that they were overly individualistic.  You seem to be clueless about this.

[FideLeo]

In principle you are right, but I would ask for a reasonable balance. I think you have to distinguish between the musically important measures (choice of instrument, style of playing) and the musically unimportant measures. I would e.g. never ask anyone to wear a wig when playing Händel, just for the sake of authenticity, since wigs have got no musical importance at all.

Some folks here go for hyperbole regularly - I wouldn't care so much about what they say.  

[(poco) Sforzando]

In principle you are right, but I would ask for a reasonable balance. I think you have to distinguish between the musically important measures (choice of instrument, style of playing) and the musically unimportant measures. I would e.g. never ask anyone to wear a wig when playing Händel, just for the sake of authenticity, since wigs have got no musical importance at all.

But what is musically important (or dramatically important, as in the case of Shakespeare) may be subject to interpretation. Let's say for argument's sake, that the voice is an instrument. Would, for example, the use of boys in soprano/alto roles in Bach, as well as boys for female roles in Shakespeare, be obligatory in your view? (I leave out the question of whether castrati should be obligatory in Handelian opera. But if we're truly going to be HIP . . . .  ) Would you reject an inspired reading of Lady Macbeth by a great actress, or an inspired reading of the Diabellis by a modern pianist, on the grounds that the "choice of instrument" is a musically important factor?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Some folks here go for hyperbole regularly - I wouldn't care so much about what they say.  

Some do indeed. Case in point:
"HIP for all and all for HIP! Harpsichord for Bach, fortepiano for Beethoven and pianoforte for Brahms!"

[MN Dave]

If there's a basic complaint about early 20th century pianists, it's that they were overly individualistic.  You seem to be clueless about this.

No complaints here.

And I own Arrau and Sokolov. Should give those a listen sometime soon.

[FideLeo]

Some do indeed. Case in point:
"HIP for all and all for HIP! Harpsichord for Bach, fortepiano for Beethoven and pianoforte for Brahms!"

Sorry if you think so, but what you think may be hyperbole! 

[Don]

I'm sorry to see that the argument is tending toward fortepiano vs. modern piano.  It's the performance that counts, not the instrument. 

[MN Dave]

Sorry if you think so, but what you think may be hyperbole! 

I never discuss religion, politics or HIP.

[FideLeo]

I'm sorry to see that the argument is tending toward fortepiano vs. modern piano.  It's the performance that counts, not the instrument. 

Well the instrument does count for me -- and I imagine for someone like Malcolm Bilson or Robert Levin as well, who have written extensively about the musical benefits of using fortepianos.