I went to the final concert in the 'Tchaikovsky in miniature' mini-series. Both pieces were enjoyable but didn't, for me, seem like very co-hesive works. I thought the Copland started off rather 'modern' - not at all my image of Copland - but then became rather 'jazzy'. With Tchaikovsky's Trio the two movements were both good listening but didn't seem to go together as a whole (the second movement, the variations, seemed to go on a bit 
). Perhaps because Tchaikovsky was reluctant to write it, not liking the instrumental combination. It might also have been the performers; they only got together as a trio in 2012 & seemed a bit 'fidgety' together, not settled down as a group (unlike the Brodskies - you could see they were communicating with each other, but very smoothly).
Listening to it again later I was struck by the difference in the balance betwen the instruments. In the hall the piano was very dominant - it was like a performance for piano with accompanying strings, rather than the three instruments being equal partners (which is my interpretation of what a trio would be - perhaps I'm wrong). On the radio the piano was much less dominant.
). Perhaps because Tchaikovsky was reluctant to write it, not liking the instrumental combination. It might also have been the performers; they only got together as a trio in 2012 & seemed a bit 'fidgety' together, not settled down as a group (unlike the Brodskies - you could see they were communicating with each other, but very smoothly).Listening to it again later I was struck by the difference in the balance betwen the instruments. In the hall the piano was very dominant - it was like a performance for piano with accompanying strings, rather than the three instruments being equal partners (which is my interpretation of what a trio would be - perhaps I'm wrong). On the radio the piano was much less dominant.
Comment