How would you interpret pieces OR what do you look for in recordings?

[db05]

Inspired by the posts on best recordings, best Mozart interpreter and Mitsuko Uchida. I don't want to hijack a thread and confuse myself. I am asking for a general, beginner-friendly approach.

1. What's the difference when interpreting Baroque/ Classical/ Romantic/ Modern/ Contemporary/ etc? Aside from differences in form and style. What is expected of one that is not expected of another? Discuss.

2. Which are your favorite recordings? They may or may not be the renowned best. They may even be weird. So why do you like them? I'm talking about personal preferences now.

I have listened to a few recordings here and there, some are compilations without the pianist's name, argh. And I have my uncle's CDs, so I assume it's his preference (there are only a few, so it may not be random).

Walter Klien - Mozart Piano Sonatas (complete)
Glenn Gould - Mozart Piano Sonatas Vol. 2
Alfred Brendel - Beethoven Piano Sonatas 4 Vols.
Van Cliburn Piano Favorites
David Helfgott Plays Rach
Rubinstein - Chopin Favorites

Are these good?

[cmg]

Inspired by the posts on best recordings, best Mozart interpreter and Mitsuko Uchida. I don't want to hijack a thread and confuse myself. I am asking for a general, beginner-friendly approach.

1. What's the difference when interpreting Baroque/ Classical/ Romantic/ Modern/ Contemporary/ etc? Aside from differences in form and style. What is expected of one that is not expected of another? Discuss.

2. Which are your favorite recordings? They may or may not be the renowned best. They may even be weird. So why do you like them? I'm talking about personal preferences now.

I have listened to a few recordings here and there, some are compilations without the pianist's name, argh. And I have my uncle's CDs, so I assume it's his preference (there are only a few, so it may not be random).

Walter Klien - Mozart Piano Sonatas (complete)
Glenn Gould - Mozart Piano Sonatas Vol. 2
Alfred Brendel - Beethoven Piano Sonatas 4 Vols.
Van Cliburn Piano Favorites
David Helfgott Plays Rach
Rubinstein - Chopin Favorites

Are these good?

Wlater Klien is a highly respected pianist.  His Mozart is very correct, very stylistic and, I think, a little dry.  (When I was a kid, I heard him live in Oak Ridge, TN performing the Mozart A minor sonata.  Amazingly dramatic, tons of pedal and sounded like Beethoven!  His recording of it, however, is dry as dust.)  There are more interesting Mozart interpreters, but you can't go wrong using him as a starting point for style.

Gould.  Well, he's controversial, but I admire him immensely.

Brendel.  A brilliant man and musician.  Follow his lead.

Van Cliburn.  The Russians fell head over heels in love with him when he won the Tschaikovsy in the late 1950s (1958, I think).  His grasp of Romantic style is impeccable and inspired.  His demonstration of producing a huge, beautifully rounded tone is present in all of his recordings.  Great sense of phrasing.  Because he was so famous as a young pianist and then burned out trying to satisfy audience demand led to his relative obscurity today among younger musicans today.  But 50 years ago, this guy was a brilliant artist.  Very musical and one of the greatest interpreters of Rachmaninov ever.

Poor David Helfgott.  That movie ("Shine," is that the title?) thrust him into too much exposure and hinted that he was a much better pianist than he actually is.  He suffers from a form of schizophrenia.  His Rach recording is a sad curiosity, I'm afraid, and not much more than that.  If you want to see and hear brilliant Rach, get the newly released DVDs of the very young Cliburn playing Rach 2 and 3 in Russia.  Absolutely astounding.

Rubinstein.  Ah, a god.  His command of Chopin is beyond criticism.  His playing is full of warmth, strength and radiates the balanced human being that he was.  Horowitz, famously neurotic, charges the same music with an excitement that no one has ever surpassed.  Whatever floats your boat.  Both are supreme masters.



As for the issues of interpretation of the various musical periods, do a search here.  You will find that Bernhard, et al, offer indispensable advice and instruction that I could never, ever improve upon.

[db05]

Wlater Klien is a highly respected pianist.  His Mozart is very correct, very stylistic and, I think, a little dry.  (When I was a kid, I heard him live in Oak Ridge, TN performing the Mozart A minor sonata.  Amazingly dramatic, tons of pedal and sounded like Beethoven!  His recording of it, however, is dry as dust.)  There are more interesting Mozart interpreters, but you can't go wrong using him as a starting point for style.

My teacher said that his teacher was a friend of Walter Klien. My friend prefers Klien to Uchida in Mozart. I am confused, that's why I started this thread.

Poor David Helfgott.  That movie ("Shine<" is that the title?) thrust him into too much exposure and hinted that he was a much better pianist than he actually is.  He suffers from a form of schizophrenia. 

The movie is Shine. We watched it for class. Schizophrenia basically means seeing things that aren't there. What Helfgott had was more of a trauma plus his innate weirdness (autism?) apparent in the younger David in the movie. I think he'd be as good as Gould if it weren't for the trauma. (LOLs at "as good as Gould")

When I mention Van Cliburn around here, he is still known among the older generation. He came to the Philippines before. I thought he was the most famous pianist, and I wanted to know if he was really good, or if it's just publicity.

A search can't help me much, as I can't understand half of what they say around here! And my CDs are limited. Record bars here generally have NO CLASSICAL. I don't know if I can find free recordings. I have to borrow from teachers.


Some more CDs I got:

one more van Cliburn CD
Danielle Loriano - Romantic Music for the Piano
Eva Sukova - Classical Piano Favorites
Zoltan Kocsis - Beethoven Sonatas (just 1 CD)
Jeno Jando - Schubert Impromptus

and... OMG... My uncle had lots of Chopin
Dubravka Tomsic - Chopin 4 Impromptus, 4 Nocturnes
Bunin, Pogorelich, Ashkenazy, Jablonski - Great Chopin Performers (Is it true???)
Jablonski, Fichman, Luisada, Gekic - Chopin Piano Favorites (Again, I doubt it... Maybe my uncle was just obsessed with Chopin...  )
Salvador Falvay - Polonaises
Istvan Szekely - Etudes

I guess that's it for piano. Now don't get me started about the other works... Need to learn this for my piano.

Edit:
I want some Horowitz now...

[cmg]

My teacher said that his teacher was a friend of Walter Klien. My friend prefers Klien to Uchida in Mozart. I am confused, that's why I started this thread.

The movie is Shine. We watched it for class. Schizophrenia basically means seeing things that aren't there. What Helfgott had was more of a trauma plus his innate weirdness (autism?) apparent in the younger David in the movie. I think he'd be as good as Gould if it weren't for the trauma. (LOLs at "as good as Gould")

You know, I prefer Klien to Uchida in Mozart, too.  Of course, like Klien, when I've heard her live, she sounds much more impassioned than on her recordings, except, of course, for her recent, unsurpassed "Hammerklavier" recording.  You should get that, btw.

You're right about Helgott's disability, I'm sure.  Your definition of schizophrenia is concise and accurate.  It is about experiencing in own's head (voices, visions) what is not on the outside.  Helfgott, horribly traumatized, does appear to be suffering from a form of autism, exacerbated by childhood abuse.  Hard to say if he weren't so damaged how great he could become.  But, that said, there are much better recordings of Rach by other pianists out there.  I heard Helfgott play in NYC some years ago and it was very sad.  Critics were quite kind to him, but it was apparent he doesn't have the emotional and mental strength for a performance career. 

[cmg]

db05:

You mentioned difficulty in getting recordings in the Phillippines.  Try this link for reliable recommendations of classical recordings: 

https://www.classicstoday.com/

Then, order them on Amazon, etc. or download. 

[aewanko]

Just download those recordings! There's no such thing as classical music in the Philippines (quasi-sarcasm). Quite rare to obtain those. The only calssical music you can buy there is some hits from operatic masterpieces and that's pretty much it. Almost no piano/violin/'cello/etc. sold there.
-------------------------


Now, to your questions:
1. You should expect from Baroque-era recordings that they are played fast with little (if at all) pedal and the tempo's strict. In the classical period, kind of the same thing except that liberal tempos are acceptable. Romanticism is where you should never expect anything. Anything goes there. About Modern/Contemporary, it may be a mix of all genres.

2. As for preferred recordings, the recordings of old-school pianists, of course. It's because they are free from the modern standards of playing. A time where mistakes didn't matter and playing was spontaneous.

[db05]

I heard Helfgott play in NYC some years ago and it was very sad.  Critics were quite kind to him, but it was apparent he doesn't have the emotional and mental strength for a performance career. 

Sad... I can relate to that, since I am also weird. I sometimes lack the emotional/ mental strength to even practice. He must have loved Rach to bits to be able to get that far. 

[faulty_damper]

1. What's the difference when interpreting Baroque/ Classical/ Romantic/ Modern/ Contemporary/ etc? Aside from differences in form and style. What is expected of one that is not expected of another? Discuss.

There is no difference in how to interpret music from different eras.  Music is music regardless of style.  That is, they are all subjected to the perceptions of the human mind.  Performers must present it in a manner that best exploits these perceptions of the mind in order to organize information into meaningful patterns.  This way, music is also perceived by the listener.

Many teachersl say "this is Mozart and you have to play it like Mozart."
This is wrong.  You don't play Mozart this way because it is Mozart - you play it in a certain way because it sounds best and makes the best music.

[db05]

There is no difference in how to interpret music from different eras.  Music is music regardless of style.  That is, they are all subjected to the perceptions of the human mind.  Performers must present it in a manner that best exploits these perceptions of the mind in order to organize information into meaningful patterns.  This way, music is also perceived by the listener.

Many teachers say "this is Mozart and you have to play it like Mozart."
This is wrong.  You don't play Mozart this way because it is Mozart - you play it in a certain way because it sounds best and makes the best music.

faulty, this was my view at first. It is in the ears of the performer and listener. Am just curious how you'd hear/ play it.

fyi, I never really liked Mozart. At first it would give me headaches. I learned to shut out whenever I hear Mozart and the like.  I may be missing a lot here... but it's true.

[faulty_damper]

I have heard the sonatas performed even before I learned how to play the piano.  I never liked the sonatas because they sounded terrible.  It wasn't until recently when I realized that it wasn't the music that was terrible but the performances of them.

Unfortunately, I've yet to hear of excellent performances and have been hesitant to purchase any recordings of them.  Some pianists play them like technical, paint-by-numbers exercises (e.g. Gould & Uchida) and some just play them like they are practicing sight-reading (e.g Barenboim).  For some reason, many pianists think Mozart only wrote technical and sight-reading exercises.

Because I understand the music, I interpret the music best.  I don't follow any "rules" (like avoiding pedal or finger legato) because these are technical issues, not musical ones.  Making music is the point, not playing the piano.  My interpretation is music.

The music is exciting, joyful, unexpected, angry, lyrical, beautiful... but I've yet to hear an interpretation that best reflects these ideas.  Some have come close and these were the ones that helped me understand that these pieces were not just piano pieces but pieces of music.

[db05]

People may hate me for this, but I interpret K545 in words as:
"I'm happy, I'm feeling glad... I can play scales! I can play arpeggios!... I got sunshine in a bag, sunshine in a bag... I can play more arpeggios!... I'm useless, but not for long... Got a future, it's coming on..."

I can't play any Mozart. But I play classical on guitar sometimes. I just don't mind it, and play how I want to. As a result, it's weird... Sounds like pop... My teacher doesn't mind though. But there's a stark difference when anyone else plays, I feel left out.

Edit:
My first guitar teacher hates classical because he also feels most people do it paint-by-numbers. Thus, he avoids it as much as possible, and teaches it only when we have exams and recitals. You're the only other person I've ever met who feels the same.

[general disarray]

I have heard the sonatas performed even before I learned how to play the piano.  I never liked the sonatas because they sounded terrible.  It wasn't until recently when I realized that it wasn't the music that was terrible but the performances of them.

Unfortunately, I've yet to hear of excellent performances and have been hesitant to purchase any recordings of them.  Some pianists play them like technical, paint-by-numbers exercises (e.g. Gould & Uchida) and some just play them like they are practicing sight-reading (e.g Barenboim).  For some reason, many pianists think Mozart only wrote technical and sight-reading exercises.

Because I understand the music, I interpret the music best.  I don't follow any "rules" (like avoiding pedal or finger legato) because these are technical issues, not musical ones.  Making music is the point, not playing the piano.  My interpretation is music.

The music is exciting, joyful, unexpected, angry, lyrical, beautiful... but I've yet to hear an interpretation that best reflects these ideas.  Some have come close and these were the ones that helped me understand that these pieces were not just piano pieces but pieces of music.

Actually, this is wonderful observation and I had the same experience with recordings of Mozart:  dull, dull, dull.  As a kid, before I "knew" better, I'd play the sonatas without any concern whatsoever for "style."  I viewed them, innocently, as simply music and often great music at that.  They were a joy to play.  UNTIL teachers insisted I drink the "stylistic Kool-Aid."  Suddenly, it felt like someone threw a huge, dusty, dried-out old blanket over the sparkling, fizzy, impassioned notes.

I still haven't forgiven them for this.