Bach: Well-Tempered Clavier

[milk]

Yes of course it's a "review" from your view and I understand what you say. I'm not criticizing your view. And this : (Person A likes X. I don't like X. Therefore, I probably won't agree with A's tastes)? is not what it is. Taste is something else. There are certain ways to certain composers. Tureck's not it. If someone is praising Tureck's WTC, either he/she has no idea of Bach or he/she is just liking the performance of a piano piece which I'm sure she is a great player.

I was trying to give Mandryka simple Mozart example. I hope you'd understand what I mean this time. If you listen to his BPO account of Prague, you will see that he as usual goes with full force, articulation, phrasing like he takes any other romantic symphony. He is a great conductor, the orchestra plays like gods, it's a great recording, it is NOT Mozart's 38...if I read a review praising Karajan's 38 among other 38s that review is not valid...not only for me but people who are after the 38

edit: I really hope I haven't attacked anybody's Mozart by Karajan love 

So, what you are saying is...that what you are saying is not an opinion but is the way things are and that those who disagree with you simply have not understood the way things are. 

[Sergeant Rock]

Here, I'm actually asking how would you, all, judge a cadenza composed by a well-known pianist for one of Mozart's piano concertos demanding a 7 octave piano while Mozart's era fortepianos were 5 octave?

One purpose of the cadenza is to show off the pianists skill and ability to improvise. Since a player today has the use of the modern piano, I see nothing wrong with a pianist making full use of his instrument. I'm sure Mozart would approve. I know you like Mozart played by orchestras with instruments Mozart would not recognize (Böhm/Berlin for example). So why do you object to a modern cadenza?

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

I'm not rigid at all...

  ...good one, Annie.

Sarge

[Sammy]

Then could you, please, just listen to Nikolayeva and tell me how "romantic" would you characterize it?

That would take a few hours and there are quite a few WTC versions I would rather listen to than Nikolayeva's.  However, I do remember finding her interpretations a little more romantic than most.  My basic problem with her performances was that she sounded speed-challenged to me in the faster pieces.

[Sammy]

Here, I'm actually asking how would you, all, judge a cadenza composed by a well-known pianist for one of Mozart's piano concertos demanding a 7 octave piano while Mozart's era fortepianos were 5 octave?

I'd listen to it a few times and reach a conclusion.  I would not automatically dismiss it.

[Sergeant Rock]

Oh, not you. I'm just asking in the light of the discussion here if it's Mozart or not.

What is Mozart (or Bach)? Apparently it's music you've self-defined in a way that eliminates most performances and performers (even performers who spent their entire lives in service to the music, like Turek and Gould). If that isn't the very definition of rigid...

Sarge

[kishnevi]

Mozart is not a What,  he's a Who; and since the only person who knows whether Mozart would have approved of that cadenza is Mozart,  that means, short of  a resurrection machine or a TARDIS,  we can only make not very well informed guesses.


I did note yesterday the irony by which a person who posts their location as "Loony Bin"  spoke about "musically sane"

[Sammy]

What is Mozart (or Bach)?

Those are hard questions to answer; also difficult are questions as to whether Mozart or Bach would enjoy a particular performance of their music.  Would Bach give a thumbs up to Tureck's recordings of his music?  Any yes or no answer is pure speculation.  That's why I indicated that Annie's thoughts on the subject were on the rigid side.

[Wakefield]

Oh my! Is that you???    .

I guess you know that "Sarge" is really David Hurwitz and "Jenny" the respected critic Jens F. Laurson. 

[Sammy]

Of course. Even I, being rigid and all , have the recording and the score. I listen to it from time to time. What I'm asking is would you qualify that recording a Mozart?

Yes, as long as the cadenza fit in well with Mozart's musical personality as I see it.

Just recently, I was listening to a Mozart cadenza that must have been written by a true "romantic"; I could hardly tolerate the romantic drama/angst because it was so beyond Mozart's musical personality.

Obviously, I don't feel that way about Tureck's Bach.

[Wakefield]

Yes, it's me.  No plans to revisit or rewrite - I got totally burned out on the whole process a few years ago.

It's a shame because you're one of the most reliable Bach critics that I have found on the web. Over the years I have particularly enjoyed your comparative reviews, especially when they are a sort of transcription of your listening notes, more than a traditional review.

[kishnevi]

I'm not asking if Mozart would have approved or if he'd enjoy it, that's Sarge who muddied the water. Simple, is a 7 octave cadenza Mozart or not?   

No, it's not.  A 7 octave cadenza is a 7 octave cadenza.  Mozart was a person, not a piece of music.  The only question  is whether that cadenza fits musically into the concerto for which it was written, and the answer for that can vary from auditor to auditor.  And since I don't even know which pianist you're referring to,  I'm not able to say whether it does or does not fit musically into the concerto for which it was written.

[Sammy]

I'm not asking if Mozart would have approved or if he'd enjoy it, that's Sarge who muddied the water. Simple, is a 7 octave cadenza Mozart or not?   

Once again, you're going the "simple" route.  I think you're insisting on some kind of mechanical purity here that holds no interest for me.

What does interest me most these days is the matter of Bach's repeats.  How about you?

[Sammy]

It's a shame because you're one of the most reliable Bach critics that I have found on the web. Over the years I have particularly enjoyed your comparative reviews, especially when they are a sort of transcription of your listening notes, more than a traditional review.

Well, I did very much enjoy doing those reviews and wanted them to be in a conversational style rather than the traditional manner.  But quite a few years ago I made a bad decision to join the MusicWeb review gang; I allowed that experience to alter my writing style and personality.  As a result, the entire process started to be work instead of enjoyment.  Then, a couple of years later, I noticed a tendency to just look at the empty computer screen and not have anything to say.  As of today, I doubt I'll ever get into it again.

[Sammy]

What do you mean?

Well, take the Goldberg Variations with the customary AABB sequence.  Bach does not indicate how these repeats are to be played.  Some performances play them pretty "straight"; others vary the tempo, apply trills or other added ornamentation, change dynamics, insert staggering of musical lines, etc.  There are those whose response is to not play them at all.

Anyways, I find it a fascinating  topic since in a work such as the Goldbergs, it's half the musical time.  So again, how about you?

[Parsifal]

Here, I'm actually asking how would you, all, judge a cadenza composed by a well-known pianist for one of Mozart's piano concertos demanding a 7 octave piano while Mozart's era fortepianos were 5 octave?

One purpose of the cadenza is to show off the pianists skill and ability to improvise. Since a player today has the use of the modern piano, I see nothing wrong with a pianist making full use of his instrument. I'm sure Mozart would approve. I know you like Mozart played by orchestras with instruments Mozart would not recognize (Böhm/Berlin for example). So why do you object to a modern cadenza?

Sarge

While I wouldn't automatically dismiss the hypothetical cadenza making use of 7 octaves,  I would see it as somewhat problematic.  The struggle against limitations of a genre is typical of art, and the same applies to classical music.  What's the best music that can be composed for two hands on a keyboard, a quartet of string instruments, a solo cello, an orchestra  comprised of a standard set of instruments? 

My problem with the 7 octave cadenza is that it puts Wolfie at a disadvantage.  He has written 25 minutes of music under the constraint of a 5 octave keyboard, then all of a sudden the soloist uses all 88 keys of the modern piano in his or her cadenza.  You've given the soloist a bigger bag of tricks than Wolfie had.  I wouldn't say it's not Mozart, but it's not fair! 

[Parsifal]

What does interest me most these days is the matter of Bach's repeats.  How about you?

That's a pet peeve of mine.  I hate when repeats are skipped, but I also find it a waste when a repeat is played identically the second time.  The performers should take advantage of the repeat by giving another view of the music, either varying the ornaments used, or by making different interpretive choices the second time around.  Schiff is an example of a musician who knows how to take advantage of repeats.

[Sammy]

You know that you shouldn't be exposed to romanticism while listening to Mozart's PCs.

You make it sound like an evil virus.  I can well handle a certain degree of romanticism in Mozart's piano concertos, but I have my limits just like others have their own limits.

[Mandryka]

I'm just asking in the light of the discussion here if it's Mozart or not.

The idea of something's "being Mozart" is too poorly defined to be applied in cases like this. If someone says that the number of octaves in the cadenza is essential to being Mozart, and someone disagrees, there's just no way to decide between the competing views.

[Sammy]

I don't know in which context do you ask, but I became aware of that by Gould's 30+ recording. My references for those are Hantai and Perahia. Both are through with the repeats, 77 and 73mins respectively. I don't prefer it very colorful. I was hesistant about repeats' effect on liveliness but Perahia makes it live. If you elaborate maybe I could add more

I have no idea what you mean by "colorful" or "liveliness".  Probably best that you and I do not discuss repeats.