Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte
View Post
BaL 16.12.17 - Schubert: Piano Sonata no. 21 in B flat D960
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by richardfinegold View PostComposers were trying to communicate with listeners
not be quality control supervisors at factories.
And then the listener can decide for the self if the performance is valid[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
Does anyone have the Michel Dalberto Brilliant set? Well reviewed but I assume D960 is only available as part of the set? Or not at all other than the market stall?It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View PostBut how can such communication take place if an Interpreter doesn't play what the composer has written?
In what way(s) does a performer playing what the composers wrote turn those composers into "quality control supervisors at a factory"?
But how can a listener do such a thing if s/he doesn't know that an interpretation has expurgated passages from a work? In short, how can a performance which doesn't present the full text of a work be "valid", without saying that the composers' ideas are "invalid"?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by silvestrione View PostGreat performances often suggest that some of the composer's ideas are invalid.
Indeed, if what you suggest were true, then the work wouldn't need to be performed at all - all that would be needed is the chosen recording to be played. In forty/fifty years' time Brendel and all the recordings in Alpie's list will be known only to a few enthusiasts: a fraction of the number of people who wish to hear D960. The work is what where the greatest interest lies - the performers are only important inasmuch as how much they communicate of the work.[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View PostI think that this is is utter bol ... nonsense, if the work in question is - as D960 undoubtedly is - one of the finest products of the human imagination. If it is a "great performance", it will engage fully with the ideas of a "great work". Some other composers do indeed need "help" from performers' "tweaks", but this work ain't one of them.
Indeed, if what you suggest were true, then the work wouldn't need to be performed at all - all that would be needed is the chosen recording to be played. In forty/fifty years' time Brendel and all the recordings in Alpie's list will be known only to a few enthusiasts: a fraction of the number of people who wish to hear D960. The work is what where the greatest interest lies - the performers are only important inasmuch as how much they communicate of the work.
But I'm now two posts past my final thoughts on the matter....That's definitely it.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View Post"Never trust the teller, trust the tale", aktcherly.
Page 1, Chapter 1.....
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by jayne lee wilson View PostNo, the correct quote is as Silvestrione originally wrote..."Never trust the artist. Trust the tale..."
Page 1, Chapter 1.....
https://biblio.wiki/wiki/Studies_in_...ture/Chapter_1
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by silvestrione View PostHe thinks the art-work itself knows better than Schubert
Originally posted by silvestrione View PostOne of the weaknesses of the Schubert sonatas is the element of repetition, that is just repetition, particularly in last movements, but also, as Brendel says, in expositions and recapitulations. So, we don't need it three times, the balance and structure don't, the impact is greater without.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by silvestrione View PostI think it's just common sense.
I think you're right that this conversation has reached the same empasse that this subject always does; it'll no doubt recur. The most important thing I personally take from it can be summed up as vive les differences[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostThis statement makes no sense to me. How can an artwork "know" anything? Brendel thinks he knows better than Schubert.
And what you're saying here is that you don't really like Schubert's late work, which is of course OK - I find the last movement of his C major symphony tedious in the extreme, and excising the repeats does little to improve it as far as I'm concerned. But on the few occasions that I feel like hearing it I do want to hear the music as written by Schubert and not as chopped up by someone who is unable or unwilling to commit themselves to what's in the score.
You give yourself away with 'chopped up': that is clearly NOT what Brendel is doing. Smoothing out perhaps, if you want to put it negatively.
'How can an art-work "know" anything?' It's a figure of speech, of course, but an illuminating one I think, and I recommend the original context of the dictum from D.H.Lawrence.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View Postutter bol"...the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears, and sometime voices..."
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostDoes anyone have the Michel Dalberto Brilliant set? Well reviewed but I assume D960 is only available as part of the set? Or not at all other than the market stall?
I'm afraid I don't remember the playing in detail, so I can't offer much of a review. All I remember is that I wasn't that impressed, though there was nothing really objectionable about the playing or the sound. I had no qualms about getting rid of the set, anyway. That probably isn't very helpful..........though I wouldn't dream of getting rid of my Kempff, Lupu, Pollini, Uchida, Andsnes or Schiff.
Comment
-
Comment