BaL 15.05.21 - C.P.E. Bach: Cello Concerto no. 3 in A

[vinteuil]

Really interesting - what German term does he use ?

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papillons

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liederkreis_op._39_(Schumann)

.

[Ein Heldenleben]

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieder..._39_(Schumann)

.

Yes but isn’t Kreis a circle not a cycle ?

[Richard Barrett]

Really interesting - what German term does he use ?

I meant opp. 24 and 39 in fact - the 4 on my keyboard is a bit unreliable! Yes, German has the two words Kreis and Zyklus just like English, but their semantic ranges aren't quite coextensive. We wouldn't generally say "a circle of songs" for example.

[jayne lee wilson]

I think "cycle" has its uses in symphonic terms.

Mozart's Symphonies are very diffuse; they don't really get started till No.25. So perhaps "Series" or more locally, "Sets", could be used for such phenomena. Haydn worked in formally remodelled and stylistic groups (Baroque or post-Baroque, Sturm und Drang) or Occasional Commissioned Series (e.g. Paris and London). And inevitably some seeming one-offs.

Surely Beethoven is different though. There is an intense focus on stylistic development and formal innovation work to work through the Big Nine, an evident creative self-response back-and-forth between the works, and surely an autobiographical element too (not necessarily close to the chronology).
With Bruckner, and most especially with Mahler and Shostakovich (or even Sibelius and Nielsen), these inputs to the creator spiritus become even more obvious - especially that autobiographical narrative (whether historical, reflecting what was happening in the world around them, or emotional/artistic).

All this is surely part of that (post-)"Romantic Artist" or "Romantic Agony" concept of creativity and the creative personae (more than one in a single creator, sometimes) as well.
(Which "empfindsamkeit" and "Sturm und Drang" both "come before"...howsoever you relate or contextualise them...)

So "Cycle" seems more apt there. Or lets just try to think of another apt term.....

(Busy with Cats and Vets and Gods Knows What Else today... back Le Soir...)

[Barbirollians]

I have that Cafe Zimmermann box and unlike a lot of it the performance of CPE’s Cello Concerto No 3 did not make much of an impression on me - will dig it out .

[jayne lee wilson]

CPE Bach A Major Cello Concerto. Gaillard/Pulcinella (Aparté) - O18thC/Dieltiens (Glossa) Compared…(QOBUZ 24/96/88.2)

The Gaillard is a very good, sharply-phrased performance, well-balanced and immediate but with good depth and an exhilarating tonal character. Never overdriven, subtle dynamic expression. So - much to admire, little to fault. But was it terribly distinctive, I wondered?
I wasn't sure about the fortepiano - it wasn't intrusive but didn't seem to add a great deal either. It just filled in the space a bit; I wondered if it were a little too similar to the cello’s own registers, neither blending nor contrasting to any meaningful extent. I usually enjoy harpsichord continuo as it tends to add to the spaciousness and coloristic range, rather than fill it in.
(Try Wolfram Chists’s 6 Hamburg String Symphonies Wq182 with the Stuttgart CO (Hanssler), for another, I think more effective example of fortepiano accompaniment: a larger string group, a warmer, well-balanced piano enriching the texture, albeit without a concertante soloist to deal with).

But each time I returned to Dieltiens, I revelled again in its greater musical daring and expressive freedom. Slightly slower tempi here allow for greater variety of pace, phrase and dynamics, focussing your attention.
And - yes, the spacious beauty of sound - emphasising Dieltiens' spikier, less blended voicing.
Fascinating dynamic extremes from the OAE in the adagio, really drawing the ear in. So the slow movements sound even more strikingly distinct: the Dieltiens has an epic, grander and profoundly intense feel I find quite hypnotic. The Gaillard closer and more intimate; both are very beautiful.
One has an epic-tragic atmosphere, the other more lyrical, humanly confiding.
As in the outer movements, Dieltiens is more daring and free in his solo role (often startlingly - that mini-cadenza at around 3’10 in OAE/Dieltiens’ wildly exciting finale really makes you sit up!) Gaillard more direct and straightforward as it settles into its pleasing allegro grooves.
As will be obvious I have a strong preference for the grander one. Especially as the soloistic adventurousness suits the large and resonant acoustic so well, in an aesthetic sense.

***
Notes on Reverb..

The bigger the soundstage your system creates, and the higher the usable volume within your room, the further you get into it.
I think this is why very resonant recordings tend to be so system-dependent and opinion-divisive. Think of a photo analogy, where you zoom into the detail, but want to retain the whole view as well. Say a parkland view, with trees and birds. At first you can’t identify any of them; the scene blown up and zoomed in, you know every bird and tree, follow their movements, but on a large screen retain the space and scale. Flattened distance becomes thrillingly present and dimensional. You need space and high definition to achieve that. Volume is like a zoom lens, going in or pulling out - but crucially, the soundstage scale should be retained around that for the most accurate reproduction. The result can be thrilling - you can dwell inside this large 3D space, but feel close to the performers and their instruments as well.

Its all there on the Glossa set. But you might need the zoom lens and the big screen to hear it (or "see it")!

[MickyD]

Just listened to this BAL. Nothing much has done much to persuade me to buy another version to the lovely Biljsma/OAE one I already have, but I have to congratulate Hannah French on managing to fit in so many recordings in just 45 minutes.

[jayne lee wilson]

Just listened to this BAL. Nothing much has done much to persuade me to buy another version to the lovely Biljsma/OAE one I already have, but I have to congratulate Hannah French on managing to fit in so many recordings in just 45 minutes.

I guess you don't use a streaming service like Qobuz? I guess it depends how much you love this composer (I'm besotted), but its a shame you couldn't hear the Dieltiens... very strikingly distinctive, albeit a bit system-dependent for sound (or so it seems from previous posts). One of my alltime CPE greats.

It has an unusual reach and grandeur; reminds one that the slow movement is headed "Largo Maestoso".... played slower than usual (2' longer than Gaillard or Queyras), this is a remarkable performance of one of the greatest tragic slow movements, baroque or otherwise, in an oeuvre scarcely short of such.

[Braunschlag]

but its a shame you couldn't hear the Dieltiens... very strikingly distinctive, albeit a bit system-dependent for sound (or so it seems from previous posts)..[/QUOTE]

Nope, that is not the reason - at least three have mentioned an over-reverberant recording from headphones listening, not via a system.

[jayne lee wilson]

but its a shame you couldn't hear the Dieltiens... very strikingly distinctive, albeit a bit system-dependent for sound (or so it seems from previous posts)..

[Braunschlag QUOTE: Nope, that is not the reason - at least three have mentioned an over-reverberant recording from headphones listening, not via a system.[/QUOTE]]

But all headphones are self-evidently not the same, so how can they be some touchstone of the truth? They are all systems, or part of a system, in themselves. Some will offer greater scale, detail, focus and insight, some less. How does one judge "over-reverberant" as against.... well, what? "Strikingly reverberant" "Very reverberant"....

The listener chooses the terms, pejorative or appreciative, to match her subjective experience. Mine is very positive indeed. A thrilling sense of space and scale in a large acoustic, with all the instrumental and ensemble detail vivid before me. There's nothing ambiguous about it.
It is a shame, as I've often remarked, that we can't beam down in front of each other's systems to hear the same recording on the same system. (Especially the one used to monitor the recording when they made it: I often wonder if disagreements between listeners arise because some of them have system balances closer to those in the original setup. It is at least plausible, surely?)

"Largo Maestoso".... I've lost count of the recordings I've heard of this concerto; not many attain to that expression. The O18thC/Diletiens does, for all the aforementioned reasons. No-one else has remarked upon the finale cadenza either. It wasn't lost in space here.

So see #51, last section. I can't make myself much clearer.....

[MickyD]

I guess you don't use a streaming service like Qobuz? I guess it depends how much you love this composer (I'm besotted), but its a shame you couldn't hear the Dieltiens... very strikingly distinctive, albeit a bit system-dependent for sound (or so it seems from previous posts). One of my alltime CPE greats.

It has an unusual reach and grandeur; reminds one that the slow movement is headed "Largo Maestoso".... played slower than usual (2' longer than Gaillard or Queyras), this is a remarkable performance of one of the greatest tragic slow movements, baroque or otherwise, in an oeuvre scarcely short of such.

No, I don't use any streaming service, being quite happy to stick with CDs and acquiring them when I am persuaded by good reviews on radio and in magazines...and here in France there is ample coverage for me to get that information.

I'll try to give the Dieltens a listen.

I too have been captivated by CPE for over 40 years - would it be heresy to say that I turn to him much more often than his father?

[Richard Barrett]

at least three have mentioned an over-reverberant recording from headphones listening, not via a system.

Indeed, and, sadly, this appears for whatever reason to be a deliberate feature of O18C recordings in recent years, as can be heard in Frans Brüggen's two Beethoven symphony sets, the second of which is unlistenable as far as I'm concerned. It's a wonderful ensemble but it seems like its recording engineers don't want listeners to hear all that attention paid to sound and chamber-music-like interaction. I have three pairs of headphones and two stereo systems in different rooms and they all tell me the same thing.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I spent quite a few years working in audio recording and we were always told that the hifi equipment (whether it’s headphones or a cheap or high end setup) will make very little difference to the perceived reverb time on a recording . That will be much more a function of the acoustic in which the music was recorded and the placing of the Mics during the recording .
Some people will prefer recordings with longer reverb times , others won’t. I don’t think the ultra dry Toscanini NBC recordings work with the repertoire he’s recording - they might have worked with some works like Stimmung.
What’s all important in acoustic reproduction is the listening room . If you are listening in a large converted barn with wooden exposed floors that will sound very different to listening in a living room with carpets book and soft furnishing. The former could in theory make the recording sound more echoey by adding extra acoustic. The aim in constructing recording cubicles was to get something like a living room acoustic which is why almost as much money was spent on acoustic treatment and panels as the recording gear. Going back a few decades there was also a variety of not very good artificial echo units ( indeed echo rooms) with the warning - you can add it but you can’t take it away ...
I often wonder how much artificial echo is used on classical recordings . You (occasionally) hear it on R3 - particularly on voice. It’s used all the time in rock including bizarrely in open air performances where there is no reverb at all ( except possibly off a nearby hillside)

[Richard Barrett]

I spent quite a few years working in audio recording and we were always told that the hifi equipment (whether it’s headphones or a cheap or high end setup) will make very little difference to the perceived reverb time on a recording

That is my understanding too. My two listening situations are (a) a living room with partly carpeted floor and paintings/bookshelves on the walls, which gives what I would imagine is a fairly average home-listening acoustic, and (b) my studio with near-field monitors which more or less cancel out the (already dry) acoustic of the room, it's not a properly treated studio space but I've used it to mix and master acoustic recordings. And headphones of course. I am not inclined to take seriously any suggestion that these situations make what I'm listening to sound more reverberant.

Regarding your question about acoustic recordings, my answer is: probably quite often. It can be very hard to tell whether reverb is artificial or not with the use of convolution-based techniques, where the impulse response of a real space is sampled and added to the dry recording.

[Ein Heldenleben]

That is my understanding too. My two listening situations are (a) a living room with partly carpeted floor and paintings/bookshelves on the walls, which gives what I would imagine is a fairly average home-listening acoustic, and (b) my studio with near-field monitors which more or less cancel out the (already dry) acoustic of the room, it's not a properly treated studio space but I've used it to mix and master acoustic recordings. And headphones of course. I am not inclined to take seriously any suggestion that these situations make what I'm listening to sound more reverberant.

Regarding your question about acoustic recordings, my answer is: probably quite often. It can be very hard to tell whether reverb is artificial or not with the use of convolution-based techniques, where the impulse response of a real space is sampled and added to the dry recording.

One curious effect I have noted on digital streams with lower bit rates / sampling frequency (e,g, Amazon Prime ) is that echo isn’t reproduced faithfully . So for example the decay at the chordal end of a piece doesn’t appear to fade away in a ‘natural manner’ . The very last part of the sound seems to fall away unnaturally quickly - almost at times appearing chopped off. I wonder whether this is the equivalent audio effect to the quantising ‘noise ‘ you see on video when there is a lot of rapidly changing picture information e.g. moving leaves on a tree or the grass on a football pitch when the camera is panning quickly to follow the action . Unfortunately my technical knowledge is very much weighted to the analogue end of audio/video tech so I didn’t realise (from what you are saying) that artificial echo is now almost undetectable.