Bach: Well-Tempered Clavier

[Sammy]

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.

That I can understand.  I also prefer the repeats being observed, but a great performance without repeats remains a great performance.  As for playing a repeat in an identical manner, I agree that some deviation can certainly enrich the listening experience.

[Mandryka]

This is almost what I meant. That romanticism is not Mozart and your toleration is the "taste". Somebody else may really like it. That shouldn't qualify it as a good Mozart ** piano concerto recording even if the performance is great.

I think Schnabel's modernist cadenza for k491 really fits well with his vision of the concerto, because it's so dark and nervous and edgy. Yet clearly it's not using musical ideas which were part of Mozart's world.

You have to spell it all out like this. Catch all espressions like "Mozartian" are useless, meaningless.

[Parsifal]

Actually it's pretty defined.

My opinion = fact.

That's a convenient way of arriving at definitions. 

[Mandryka]

That's a pet peeve of mine.  I hate when repeats are skipped

Is that a Bach thing or do you feel the same elsewhere - in Schubert, for example?

[Parsifal]

Is that a Bach thing or do you feel the same elsewhere - in Schubert, for example?

I generally prefer repeats to be observed. 

[Mandryka]

Actually it's pretty defined. Maybe not in the forums . It's not a matter of view or opinion but I won't open another can of worms 

Open the can - just a reference will do.

[Sammy]

Maybe you should come back when you clarify which aspect you want to discuss on your mind first

Let's start with this - What do you mean by a colorful repeat?

By the way, I thought my reply #1081 was pretty clear as to my specific interest.

[Sammy]

Is that a Bach thing or do you feel the same elsewhere - in Schubert, for example?

I'm not Scarpia, but I would like to address the question.  When I love the music, I want the repeat.  When I don't, it's fine with me to skip it.

[aukhawk]

If you don't love the music, don't listen to it at all.  This is in the 'Recordings' forum after all.  Life's too short.  Just hit the 'Stop' button and move on.   

[Sammy]

If you don't love the music, don't listen to it at all.  This is in the 'Recordings' forum after all.  Life's too short.  Just hit the 'Stop' button and move on.   

That's good advice, but it can take many listenings before I decide that "love" is not in bloom.

[Parsifal]

That's good advice, but it can take many listenings before I decide that "love" is not in bloom.

Quite so.  Three evenings ago I listened to Medtner's Op 27 (Ballade-Sonata) and felt it was uninspired.  One evening ago I listened to it again and it "bloomed."

[Pat B]

Simple, is a 7 octave cadenza Mozart or not?

Of course not, but "not Mozart" hardly invalidates it. Lots of cadenzas are not by the composer of the concerto -- as I'm sure you know. And to me, it makes little sense allow the whole thing to be played on an iron-frame grand that sounds very different than any instrument of Mozart's time while demanding ideological purity in the cadenza. The cadenza is the most obvious place to diverge from the composer's sound.

The more interesting question is: does it work musically? We can't say without hearing it, and different people will surely have different answers.

[Mandryka]

I'm not Scarpia, but I would like to address the question.  When I love the music, I want the repeat.  When I don't, it's fine with me to skip it.

Just an anecdote. I used to not much like the big Schubert G major quartet until I heard the Melos Quartet play it on DHM - they play the repeats in the first movement and they play it very well. And when I heard them it was like wow, suddenly the huge flowing nobility  of the music became clear. Same for their quintet recording with Rostropovich.

I should say that I listened to that Leonhardt's recording of the Bach Partitas a few weeks ago, the one with no repeats. I missed the repeats.

I too want to encourage you to post more of your impressions, especially tough hard organ music performances.

[milk]

...different people will surely have different answers.

It seems to me that every so often someone comes on the forum and says the opposite: Something like, "there is only my answer and those that disagree are ignorant or shallow."   

[Que]

Don't know if they are mentioned in order of your preference but on harpsichord it is Wilson and Dantone for me, with Belder in the shopping cart.

(For the record: on the piano I have Gould and Fischer)

I remember listening to Van Asperen once (the recording from his EMI/Virgin years, right?), but I do not recall being blown away. Definitely check it out once more. Though his early years were not his best IMO.

That's the one.

[asin]B00002ZZ55[/asin]

[asin]B008BT105G[/asin]

Revisited Van Asperen yesterday, and it all came back to me. And it seems my previous impression years ago hasn't changed much. Though I can appreciate this recording by Van Asperen more on a technical level, the drawbacks I found are still the same: mechanical, rather "cold" playing with insufficient rhythmic variation. Things are not helped by a recording that makes the harpsichord sound very brittle (early digital?). I personally like his playing in his later Teldec and Aeolus years much, much better.

In a way I cannot blame Van Asperen at all: this recording was a stage in the development of harpsichord playing in Bach, taking the pioneering by his teacher Leonhardt a step further: more objectified, "true" to the score in an accurate, swift tempo. No frills, no "Romantic" touches. Things have moves on since then but this was a natural step on the way to where we are now.

Q

[Parsifal]

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 

I'm glad that you made this remark.  I had recently listened to Hogwood's recording of KV504 (my favorite recording is Harnoncourt, RCO) and pulled Karajan's DG recording with Berlin (which I last listene to ten years ago, at least).  To say that Karajan's performance is "not Mozart" is simply absurd. 

As I see it, Karajan's focus was performance of the music for an audience in his concert hall; the recording is a document of that performance.  He uses the full orchestra out of necessity.  The small PI ensembles that sound so vibrant in recordings would sound pale and weak in a large, modern concert hall.  Within the constraints of the performance conditions, I would say Karajan enters the spirit of Mozart as well as any of them.  The large ensemble gives the music a different sound and Karajan uses his full bag of tricks in manipulating the timbre of the ensemble to suit what he considers to be the mood of the music.  Some things are lost and others are gained.  The winds are less dominant, but there is a marvelous weight to the string playing in the climaxes.  Some aspects of the music loose their emphasis, but other aspects gain emphasis.  In the slow movement, in particular, I heard poignant harmonies that had completely escaped me in Hogwood's "authentic" reading.  Mozart's music is deep enough to retain it's strong identity, even when there is wide latitude in performance practice. 

[Dirge]

Peter Hill [Delphian] offers a beautifully played account (on piano) of a decidedly thoughtful and well-balanced interpretation of WTC II, one that is crafty and imaginative within a tasteful and conservative overall context. While "spontaneity" and "hell-bent for leather" certainly aren't terms that spring to mind while listening, Hill does play with a sneaky degree of resilient flexibility and impart a nice sense of flow to the proceedings -- enough so that the performance never quite sounds overthunk or conspicuously deliberate.  Phrasing is deftly pointed and articulate with very little pedaling, yet lyrical lines have a graceful profile and a fluid feel. Dynamics and dynamic contrasts are moderate throughout, and balances are relatively evenhanded, with coexisting voices sounding almost detached from one another while at the same time being perfectly choreographed and coordinated; this results in excellent clarity and transparency, with inner voices and relationships coming through clearly without undue analytical highlighting. If inner dialog sounds more rehearsed than spontaneous, with less sense of give and take than ideal, that's about my only notable reservation.

Hill's playing doesn't immediately grab you by the collar and pull you in to reveal itself all at once; it pulls you in and reveals itself in proportion to how closely and intently you listen to it -- in other words, you get out of it what you put into it.  As such, the performance/recording is as likely to bore the casual listener as it is to engross the dedicated listener. The recorded sound is very good, and Hill provides concise notes that are more to the point and helpful than most. Hill has also recorded WTC I for Delphian, and that set was released early this year; I haven't heard it aside from some on-line audio clips, but I'm sure to buy it sooner or later.

[prémont]

In a way I cannot blame Van Asperen at all: this recording was a stage in the development of harpsichord playing in Bach, taking the pioneering by his teacher Leonhardt a step further: more objectified, "true" to the score in an accurate, swift tempo. No frills, no "Romantic" touches. Things have moves on since then but this was a natural step on the way to where we are now.

I see what you mean. In a way I think van Asperen rather takes Leonhardt´s pioneering steps a little backwards torwards the preauthentic age. Still he tends to seduce me by the mere energy of his playing. But his interpretation certainly can not stand alone.

[Kontrapunctus]

I'm thoroughly enjoying this new set of Book I (I certainly hope Book II isn't far behind!):

[Sammy]

I'm thoroughly enjoying this new set of Book I (I certainly hope Book II isn't far behind!):

I listened to all the samples on JPC and was very impressed - should sound even better in SACD.  There's no screwing around from Gunther; it's all straight from the heart.  I love the flow and momentum he gives the music, his articulation is just right and the lower voices ring out proudly.  I was disappointed with the Fugue in A major BWV 864 - too polite for my taste, but you can't get everything you want from one version.