BaL 21.11.15 - Bartok: Piano Concerto no. 2

[visualnickmos]

I add my voice to the chorus of approval for this BaL.

One that I enjoy very much is Kovacevich (or whatever he called himself on 'recording day!') and Colin Davis on Philips. I was a little taken aback by Harriet Smith's comment that at one point near the end of a particular movement ".... the woodwind(?) disappears to mush!" I think the term 'hush' would have been wholly more appropriate. I think her comment was in respect to the fact that she felt the piano was generally too forwardly balanced. Personally, I think it is a work which well-warrants the piano being forward, and in this excellently engineered recording works well to produce a fiery performance.

That said, I did - as always with HS, enjoy the BaL very much. There were lots of 'back-up' facts, no personal subjective responses.... a top-class BaL.

I too, enjoyed the Richter extracts - small, though they were., despite him apparently not having a very good day, or whatever.....

[Bryn]

I note that John Ogdon played the 2nd Concerto with the LSO conducted by Solti on 14 February 1961. I wonder if by some chance it was recorded, and that some day such a recording might surface?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I was a little taken aback by Harriet Smith's comment that at one point near the end of a particular movement ".... the woodwind(?) disappears to mush!" I think the term 'hush' would have been wholly more appropriate. I think her comment was in respect to the fact that she felt the piano was generally too forwardly balanced. Personally, I think it is a work which well-warrants the piano being forward, and in this excellently engineered recording works well to produce a fiery performance..

Yes - her admiration for the performance ("fiery" ) was clear, but there are moments (like the one she illustrated) when Bartok allows the pianist to accompany members of the orchestra, but which the engineers let down by a "close-up" on the accompaniment so that the main material gets lost in a "mushy" background - as if the work's by Prokofiev . It's not a major "offence", but I do think it prevents the recording from being a "top choice", which I think was her reason for drawing attention to it.

[ahinton]

I note that John Ogdon played the 2nd Concerto with the LSO conducted by Solti on 14 February 1961. I wonder if by some chance it was recorded, and that some day such a recording might surface?

I do hope so! I will try to find out.

[Nachtigall]

As usual I've come late to this thread, but as the owner of thirteen of those recordings listed at the beginning (including the now apparently unavailable Kocsis/Fischer) I just wanted to add my praise for Harriet Smith's perceptive and discriminating BaL. Back at the start of the 60s I had already acquired Geza Anda's recording of the First Concerto but my first LP of the Second was Stephen Bishop's, a performance I remain attached to despite the occasional muddiness of the recording quality. I have to say that those eerily glacial strings moving against each other in perfect fifths in the second movement have always had the most extraordinary effect on me.

HS was right to put aside Lang Lang and, unfortunately, also Andras Schiff, for taming, even prettifying, Bartók's fierce pianism. I deplore any attempt to make Bartók easier on the ear and more approachable, a temptation he himself, alas, succumbed to in his Third Concerto when he was beset by the depressing circumstances of his New York exile.

Stimulated by that review, I shall now embark on my own journey through those thirteen recordings on my shelves…

[rauschwerk]

Forgive my ignorance, but was the use of a theme reminiscent of The Firebird a conscious or indeed widely acknowledged act on Bartok's part?

The whole idea is a nonsense, dreamt up by some musicologist who can 'read music but not hear it' as Beecham once said. Since when did a coincidence of six notes, in a faster tempo and quite different rhythm, constitute a reminiscence?

[rauschwerk]

I deplore any attempt to make Bartók easier on the ear and more approachable, a temptation he himself, alas, succumbed to in his Third Concerto when he was beset by the depressing circumstances of his New York exile.

I won't have a word said against Bartok in this regard. He was writing a piece with which he hoped his widow could earn some money after his death. One must remember that even the Concerto for Orchestra, now so popular, was not understood by its players at the premiere. After half a dozen performances in 1944-5, the Boston Symphony didn't repeat it for another five years.

[Roehre]

The whole idea is a nonsense, dreamt up by some musicologist who can 'read music but not hear it' as Beecham once said. Since when did a coincidence of six notes, in a faster tempo and quite different rhythm, constitute a reminiscence?

Thus, Rauschwerk, you think the opening of Beethoven's opus 18/1 (1799) and opus 95 (1810) haven't got anything to do with each other, because of a different time, a quite different rhythm and even the first being in a major, the latter in a minor key?
One of Beecham's remarks showing he was only a narrow-minded conductor, with hardly any interests or knowledge of the world outside conducting, I'm afraid.

[teamsaint]

I add my voice to the chorus of approval for this BaL.

One that I enjoy very much is Kovacevich (or whatever he called himself on 'recording day!') and Colin Davis on Philips. I was a little taken aback by Harriet Smith's comment that at one point near the end of a particular movement ".... the woodwind(?) disappears to mush!" I think the term 'hush' would have been wholly more appropriate. I think her comment was in respect to the fact that she felt the piano was generally too forwardly balanced. Personally, I think it is a work which well-warrants the piano being forward, and in this excellently engineered recording works well to produce a fiery performance.

That said, I did - as always with HS, enjoy the BaL very much. There were lots of 'back-up' facts, no personal subjective responses.... a top-class BaL.

I too, enjoyed the Richter extracts - small, though they were., despite him apparently not having a very good day, or whatever.....

I am curious as to your meaning about subjective response, VN. I thought there was quite a bit of subjective response, EG her views on the Lang Lang /BPO/Rattle recording.

[Nick Armstrong]

I am curious as to your meaning about subjective response, VN. I thought there was quite a bit of subjective response

Yes, I'm unwilling to give Ms Smith a free pass on that front, too...

[HighlandDougie]

I won't have a word said against Bartok in this regard. He was writing a piece with which he hoped his widow could earn some money after his death. One must remember that even the Concerto for Orchestra, now so popular, was not understood by its players at the premiere. After half a dozen performances in 1944-5, the Boston Symphony didn't repeat it for another five years.

I very much agree with Rauschwerk's view. The 3rd PC was written as a supposed surprise birthday present for Ditta Bartok but he died before it was completely finished (and, alas, months before her birthday). Bartok was my introduction to "modern music" when I was about 14 so, while it may not have have the steel and fire of its predecessor, the third concerto has been an indelible part of my musical universe for almost fifty years. In any case, I'm not sure that "approachability" should be a criterion for putting a work down, irrespective of any other qualities it might have.

[Roehre]

I very much agree with Rauschwerk's view. The 3rd PC was written as a supposed surprise birthday present for Ditta Bartok but he died before it was completely finished (and, alas, months before her birthday). Bartok was my introduction to "modern music" when I was about 14 so, while it may not have have the steel and fire of its predecessor, the third concerto has been an indelible part of my musical universe for almost fifty years. In any case, I'm not sure that "approachability" should be a criterion for putting a work down, irrespective of any other qualities it might have.

I concur with HighlandDougie and Rauschwork
PC 1 was my intro to Bartok, but the night music of the 3rd concerto became a kind of ear worm in the days following the first time I listened to it (and repeated the hearing a couple of times, likely influenced by my liking of Mahler 7 ii and iv).

[visualnickmos]

I am curious as to your meaning about subjective response, VN. I thought there was quite a bit of subjective response, EG her views on the Lang Lang /BPO/Rattle recording.

It's just that her 'subjectivity(?)' was directly concerned with her thoughts on the performances in question, rather than abstract emotional responses which we had just two or three weeks ago in the violin concerto of Berg's BaL, which frankly didn't mean anything.

Just my thoughts, nothing more.....

[Nachtigall]

I won't have a word said against Bartok in this regard. He was writing a piece with which he hoped his widow could earn some money after his death.

Oh dear! It was certainly not my intention to criticise Bartók's compositional purpose in the Third Concerto or to "put the work down". I got to know and love the Third Concerto before the Second and had Annie Fischer's performance on LP. I know that he wrote the piece with Ditta in mind. The fact remains that for all its virtues it is harmonically less interesting and doesn't have the high-octane drive of its predecessors. It's difficult to escape the impression that illness, homesickness and other anxieties had some part to play in its composition.

[ahinton]

I note that John Ogdon played the 2nd Concerto with the LSO conducted by Solti on 14 February 1961. I wonder if by some chance it was recorded, and that some day such a recording might surface?

I have enquired of a noted authority on John Ogdon's recorded legacy and it sadly appears that, even if it was recorded, it is no longer known to exist; who knows, though? Someone might have a copy!...