BaL 29.06.19 - Mozart: Piano Quartets 1 & 2

[Master Jacques]

I too felt it was an awful BaL. The reviewer's brief was narrow, as was the range of interpretations she chose for the forced short-list (not her fault I know, but missing out Sonnerie, for instance, shows her limited experience as a critic or recording commentator), and she had little to say about these works beyond a few bland, academic commonplaces.

It was a boring, polite and unenlightening piece of space filling, a good example of why these twofers - and many of these 'new-style' academic reviewers - have reduced BaL to something close to un-listenable vacuity.

I hope they rethink their priorities over the summer, but will not be holding my breath.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

In The Aesthetics of Music, Roger Scruton wrote that "the effect [of HIP] has frequently been to cocoon the past in a wad of phoney scholarship, to elevate musicology over music, and to confine Bach and his contemporaries to an acoustic time-warp. The tired feeling which so many 'authentic' performances induce can be compared to the atmosphere of a modern museum.... [The works of early composers] are arranged behind the glass of authenticity, staring bleakly from the other side of an impassable screen". Notice the "frequently" indicating that sometimes, Roger admits, the music makes it through the musicology and you escape the tired feeling. This has been my experience, I've enjoyed some period performances, but not in K478.

An interesting comment. For my part, I do like to hear the sounds of early instruments, most of which are perfectly satisfying within many different context. Early pianofortes (call them the fortepianos if you wish, but it was rarely used even in the era for which it's now diagnosed) are quite a different matter. They were prototypes of a keyboard instrument that could achieve a greater dynamic range that those that had gone before. They still sound little better than Russ Conway's piano. As for the balance in 18th century works, I've never experienced any problems in live performances. In recordings, there's always the extra factor of the balance engineer.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Any argument that relies on Scruton has already been lost.

[Bryn]

Any argument that relies on Scruton has already been lost.

God wins again, eh?

[Mal]

Do other professional critics rate the Fauré Quartett?

Against:

https://www.allmusic.com/album/mozart-piano-quartets-k-478-493-mw0001855452

For:

http://www.classicalsource.com/db_control/db_cd_review.php?id=3278

Middling:

http://www.classical-music.com/review/mozart-427

The "middling" review concludes: "These are fine accounts, with playing of a phenomenally high standard. In the past I have invoked both the Beaux Arts Trio with viola player Bruno Giuranna (Philips), and the Sony recording by Emanuel Ax, Isaac Stern, Jaime Laredo and Yo-Yo Ma as benchmarks. Meanwhile, there has been a superb version from Paul Lewis and the Leopold String Trio: more melancholy than the Fauré Quartet in the G minor’s opening movement, and more scintillating in its major-mode finale. Misha Donat"

[visualnickmos]

In The Aesthetics of Music, Roger Scruton wrote that "the effect [of HIP] has frequently been to cocoon the past in a wad of phoney scholarship, to elevate musicology over music, and to confine Bach and his contemporaries to an acoustic time-warp. The tired feeling which so many 'authentic' performances induce can be compared to the atmosphere of a modern museum.... [The works of early composers] are arranged behind the glass of authenticity, staring bleakly from the other side of an impassable screen". Notice the "frequently" indicating that sometimes, Roger admits, the music makes it through the musicology and you escape the tired feeling. This has been my experience, I've enjoyed some period performances, but not in K478.

Again - I echo your erudition; I love his allusion to an ancient museum piece! That's why I paint, and don't write - although that is changing. Never mind all that. Although the Faurés "won" and JLW's detailed analysis is no doubt sincerely arrived at, I find that on reading it, I ask "is the sum of the parts greater than the whole?" Based on what was sampled of them, it came across as rather characterless. As did all the HIP samples....

[doversoul1]

In The Aesthetics of Music, Roger Scruton wrote that "the effect [of HIP] has frequently been to cocoon the past in a wad of phoney scholarship, to elevate musicology over music, and to confine Bach and his contemporaries to an acoustic time-warp. The tired feeling which so many 'authentic' performances induce can be compared to the atmosphere of a modern museum.... [The works of early composers] are arranged behind the glass of authenticity, staring bleakly from the other side of an impassable screen". Notice the "frequently" indicating that sometimes, Roger admits, the music makes it through the musicology and you escape the tired feeling. This has been my experience, I've enjoyed some period performances, but not in K478.

HIPP being historically informed performance practice, when it comes to listening to recorded performance, talking about authenticity or the composer’s intentions are surely almost irrelevant and the choice is that of personal taste. Did Mozart composed with all the technologies available to today’s listeners in mind? Various aspects can of course be discussed on recording but I don’t think that was/is the main or original point of HIPP movement.

As for the reviewer for BaL, I expect him/her to be an expert both in the subject and presentation skills. Jeremy Summerly in the later slot is, to me, an excellent example. He more or less power washed Andrew McG aside.

[Mal]

‘We have period instruments, but we do not have period ears.’ - Hans Keller.

[Mal]

Again - I echo your erudition; I love his allusion to an ancient museum piece!

Actually, not much erudition involved, I just clipped that from wikipedia :) But I did think it an interesting criticism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historically_informed_performance#Criticism

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Any argument that relies on Scruton has already been lost.

Even Boris gets it right occasionally.

[Bryn]

‘We have period instruments, but we do not have period ears.’ - Hans Keller.

We have modern beefed up, even timbered, instruments, but that's not what Mozart knew or composed for.

[Mal]

Here's Nicholas Kenyon on Mozart's Piano Concerto No.19 in F Major K459:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/works/1293f1f1-97bd-448e-83cc-954e2b5bb791

How it should be done?

[cloughie]

Even Boris gets it right occasionally.

Steady now!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

‘We have period instruments, but we do not have period ears.’ - Hans Keller.

We don't have "Period Eyes", but that doesn't mean that the Sistine Chapel would be better if it were gone over with acrylics.
We don't speak with "Period Voices", but that doesn't mean that Chaucer is improved by modern English translations.

[Goon525]

I can see why Jayne reacted against the rather overdone criticism of this BaL. (She’s absolutely right, incidentally, about the impact high resolution streaming can have on listening habits, and creating an open mind!) my own view is somewhere between the extremes. I did find the reviewer tended to gabble too quickly when AMcG actually gave her an unbroken moment to speak. I’ve got the Lewis/Leopold version and (were I still buying rather than streaming) would probably rest happy. But I have marked the winner for future listening.

Those in charge do seem to have a significant prejudice against using Gramophone reviewers these days - Andrew Mellor the recent rule-proving exception. Instead we have a succession of people I’ve never heard of (and maybe that’s my problem), with a strong bias towards female reviewers (nothing wrong with that, but it is noticeable); and generally a vastly reduced playing field of versions considered. BaL ain’t quite what it used to be, and the twofer format isn’t helping, either.