BaL 16.03.24 - Handel: Concerti grossi Op 6

[Ein Heldenleben]

Hmm, you've lost me. Is it the, "made in China Steinways", which are still recognisably full-range modern concert grands or the earlier examples? No doubt the latter but I'm not sure that I don't find the reference to "Made in China" to be just a touch gratuitous. Whatever one's views on the PRC (mine are pretty dim), some very fine HiFi gear comes from the country - so I'm not sure why concert grands should be any different in terms of their quality??

Steinways are now made in China partly to satisfy the Chinese demand for instruments. I read somewhere that approx 10,000 Chinese teenagers can play the Chopin Etudes - something to be expected in a country with a large population and a family system that encourages dedication to all forms of education and places a high value on music especially.
Chinese Steinways are not thought to be as well made as those in the States but I’d be happy with either . Modern Steinways are not thought to be as well made as the older ones but who knows because those have inevitably decayed over the years.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Just listened to the first half of the Chopin Preludes on YouTube and even allowing for the poor sound quality the piano sound is pretty ropey. The midrange in particular is harsh. Never heard a Fazioli sound like this at the Wigmore or elsewhere.

Interesting - though YouTube is a poor reproduction system l His Fazioli (I’m pretty sure it follows him everywhere ) sounded way better in the Brahms 2 at Exeter Great Hall. I swear he was hitting the keys harder in the Wigmore when playing the Chopin Scherzi . He also played off iPad at Wigmore which suprised me

[RobP]

Hmm, you've lost me. Is it the, "made in China Steinways", which are still recognisably full-range modern concert grands or the earlier examples? No doubt the latter but I'm not sure that I don't find the reference to "Made in China" to be just a touch gratuitous. Whatever one's views on the PRC (mine are pretty dim), some very fine HiFi gear comes from the country - so I'm not sure why concert grands should be any different in terms of their quality??

Hi, Heldenleben has replied. I meant that the 1901 Steinway and 1913 Bechstein sound far better than the blandly homogenous sound you find on modern made in China Steinway grands. If the same applied to pianos made in any other country I would have said.

[RobP]

Interesting - though YouTube is a poor reproduction system l His Fazioli (I’m pretty sure it follows him everywhere ) sounded way better in the Brahms 2 at Exeter Great Hall. I swear he was hitting the keys harder in the Wigmore when playing the Chopin Scherzi . He also played off iPad at Wigmore which suprised me

Unfortunately that happens increasingly often in lieder recitals where the singer places a barrier between them and the audience by using the scores in paper or ipad form. The great Florian Boesch at his recent Wigmore recital, which is available on YouTube, of course doesn't. Nor did the vast majority of the great lieder singers of the past.

I have vivid memories of the great Wolfgand Holzmair and Dalton Baldwin towards the end of his career giving a tremendous Winterreise at the Wigmore, where he used his hands and arms to great effect and seemed to look into the eyes of each member of the audience, until Der Leiermann when he stood perfectly still and looked straight ahead. Completely impossible of course if you to keep looking at the text or score.

Sorry but if you can't be bothered to learn the words then you shouldn't be performing in public.

With pianists of course Richter started using the scores in the late 70s or thereabouts. As to whether he needed to is perhaps open to question. After all he did create an aura, with the hall in complete darkness, the page-turner and a single light illuminating him and the keyboard.

But again, virtually all of the great pianists of the past didn't use a score.

[smittims]

To many younger people, HIPP has been part of their life from their earliest listening, and I think that's why so many accept it naturally as the only way to interpret music of past centuries. I began listening to music on my father's 78s of Toscanini, Weingartner, Edwin Fischer etc. so to me HIPP arrived as something new and different.

I've always seen it as a rewarding movement which has opened up many centuries of wonderful music which would otherwise be forgotten ; I've enjoyed many a HIPP performance, but I've never been moved or thrilled as I am by former performing traditions. I suspect that there was a happy medium (no, not a 'golden age' but the best available compromise) achieved by such artists as Menuhin, Wenzinger, Munchinger, Richter, and Marriner which had the best of both worlds ,and that now HIPP is in danger of going too far too fast in the interests of ear-catching innovation. Worse, there's a danger that relying too much on present-day reading of old texts will lead to a sort of 'fundamentalist religion' of do's and don'ts. I accept that it's hard for today's performers to compete for the public's attention with so many digtitally-remastered recordings of classic performers available, and this is their response .

I do think it's too easily assumed that because we have 'tons of written material' on how music was played in the 18th century that guarantees that today's HIPP produces a sound exactly as it was then. This hasn't been the case with music composed 150 years ago, as authoritative recordings by the composers prove. And the reason is simply that today's performances are for today's audiences, and by today's performers, who have a different lifestyle from those of the past. To take just one aspect, It is expected that they'll play with a crisp precision of ensemble and intonation that has become the hallmark of good performance, whether of 20th century or 17th-century music. Yet there's no evidence that music was played that way before the 1920s: Tosacnini's 1926 Apprenti Sorcier is a good starting point. Older recordings show that music was played very differently in the 19th century from the way we might imagine if we read only written sources.

I think the best musicians have always been those who look beyond the surface of the notes and the sound, to consider how far they are revealing the soul of the music, whatever that may be; and that's not something that can't be learnt from a book. . .

[MickyD]

Finally caught up with the programme - I thought SMP did an excellent job, leaving the reviewer very much as the centre of attention.

[Master Jacques]

I think the best musicians have always been those who look beyond the surface of the notes and the sound, to consider how far they are revealing the soul of the music, whatever that may be; and that's not something that can't be learnt from a book. . .

I couldn't disagree more. The best performers tend to be those who've read the right books, in the right way, e.g. Rosen or Brendel. The idea that there's some inspiration or other "beyond the surface" for performers to tap into intuitively, seems to me a romantic fallacy. In my experience of theatre and music, the best performances come from those who are the best prepared, which means knowing something about the background of what you're interpreting. Which means reading about the stuff. Personality is nurture, not nature.

[french frank]

I couldn't disagree more. The best performers tend to be those who've read the right books

I read smittims' double negative as saying the same thing?

[Master Jacques]

I read smittims' double negative as saying the same thing?

Well spotted - I overlooked the double negative!

[smittims]

I'm sorry, I mis-corrected my script! I originally typed 'That's not something that can be learnt from a book' . The I mis-read it as 'that's something' and changed it to 'can't be learnt...' I apologise for any confusion; it comes from using someone else's laptop which has an over-active touch pad. graze it ever so slightly to one side of where you mean and it will highlight and delete or move a whole sentence.

But seriously, I cannot accept that one learns to be a 'best' performer by reading a book, whether or not it's the 'right' book'. If that were the caee, the world would be populated by Brendels and Kreislers; instead there's one per generation.

[Master Jacques]

But seriously, I cannot accept that one learns to be a 'best' performer by reading a book, whether or not it's the 'right' book'. If that were the case, the world would be populated by Brendels and Kreislers; instead there's one per generation.

Perhaps their competitors simply didn't read enough! Seriously, performance - in whatever medium - is an intellectual activity, which needs a bedrock of mental study (in addition to physical practice) to make it possible to produce anything worthwhile. Without that springboard, there can be none of the necessary spontaneity "in the moment", which we rightly treasure.

[RobP]

Perhaps their competitors simply didn't read enough! Seriously, performance - in whatever medium - is an intellectual activity, which needs a bedrock of mental study (in addition to physical practice) to make it possible to produce anything worthwhile. Without that springboard, there can be none of the necessary spontaneity "in the moment", which we rightly treasure.

There is also the role of the teacher. Many students will be influenced by college staff and by studying with X, Y, Z. Nevertheless I take Smittens point. Reading about music and interpretation is vital and it would be fascinating to ask both younger and older generation artists, which, if any, books influenced them. And of course Brendel has written extensively about music. But interpretive genius is not just the product of practise, reading and teaching. Quite clearly a small number of professional musicians form chamber groups and some will become soloists. And even if they become the latter, most again will not achieve universally acknowledged pre-eminence. What this select group do have is the personality and projection to persuade people that they have genuine interpretive insight, which makes them worth listening to.

[smittims]

Thanks both. This has been an interesting airing of this perennial, and, I suspect, unresolvable topic.

[Sir Velo]

A summary of all that for those that are interested. A very good Bal I thought. Hats off to those in the studio that was lot of short clips. The numbers refer to the time approx the music was played .




Giardino Armonico//Antonini (D)
10.44 No 3 v different from Pinnock , (rather rustic village band in feel EH)
10.51 No 5 - good violin attack and two harpsichords
10.53 No. 5 not deep and rich enough , better live ? Goodbye at this point


.

I hadn't played Il Giardino Armonico for a while so it came as a surprise to find that the reviewer found it so untamed. The excerpts (which EH has so helpfully identified) were chosen clearly to illustrate those moments where the performance went off piste giving the erroneous impression that the whole set is like this. I shall probably do some more comparative listening between this, the AAM/Manze and the Avison Ensemble to see whether I agree with the reviewer's conclusion.

[smittims]

As I understand it Antonini's aim was to restore the idea of fantasy and theatricality to the concertos, remembering the influence of Italian Opera on Handel, after decades where they were, it may have seemed to him, being examined as scholarly specimens under the academic microscope. He wanted the atmosphere of contest and play whihch he saw as part of the tradition of Italian concerted instrumental music. It seemms to me that he 'reined in ' his imagination somewhet in producing a performance that satisfied both the stricter HIPP fans and those looking for something more imaginative, filling in the gaps of whatwe know about wha Handel wanted in performance with a sort of 'what if...?' spirit. The result was, for me, the most interesting set of op.6 since Boyd Neel (if not the most ultimately-satisfying). .