Complete Mozart Piano Concertos

[Stefan Wood]

Where can one find the Sofronitzki? It goes for above 90 clams on Amazon.

[J.A.W.]

AVOID Immeerseel, the Perahia of period instruments here.

The name is Immerseel.

if you see it for a decent price, the Rudolph Buchbiner integrale on Profil, which might be best modern instrument set ever.

Except for the not-so-great orchestra, the Wiener Symphoniker (Vienna Symphonic Orchestra, not to be confused with the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, of course ) Some people do not seem to mind poor or sloppy orchestral accompaniment, but it spoils the whole thing for me.

By the way, the name is Buchbinder.

Edited May 31, 2011 by J.A.W.

[MomsMobley]

Stefan, coming soon-- or already there in Euroland.

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Concertos-Sofronitsky-Collegium-Varsoviense/dp/B004M5BZR6

yah, K.A.W., the Buchbonder orch. isn't the best but at least it's 'characterful.' Staeir, Vegh, Pletnev and Sofronitzki are best for non-generalized accompaniments, Fey too w/ Zitterbart.

Would be great if Rene Jacobs or the Akademie Alte Musik Berlin were in the game but so far nada.

Ashkenazy is a nullity in Mozart, Barenboim too; Brendul + Marriner probably best of the 'common' major label sets. Marriner won't rock your ass but he will poke at it once in a while-- feels good!

Where can one find the Sofronitzki? It goes for above 90 clams on Amazon.

[J.A.W.]

yah, K.A.W., the Buchbonder orch. isn't the best but at least it's 'characterful.'

"Characterful" sloppy, that's a new one. Yuck. I don't understand how anyone can enjoy a performance that is marred by poor playing, no matter how "characterful" it is. To each their own, I guess.

By the way, it's "J.A.W." - judging by the number of names you have misspelt you seem to be typing too fast

[Larry Kart]

Almost forgot -- Arthur Rubinstein, four concerti from 1961 with Wallenstein and one from 1958 with Krips on two very full CDs (K.453, 466, 467, 488, and 491) from RCA:

http://www.amazon.com/Rubinstein-Collection-Wolfgang-Amadeus-Mozart/dp/B000031WC1/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1306869583&sr=1-1

[A Lark Ascending]

This thread has just won the 'Let's Play Classical Connoisseur Top Trumps' Award for 2011.

The pretentiousness on show is mind-boggling!

[J.A.W.]

This thread has just won the 'Let's Play Classical Connoisseur Top Trumps' Award for 2011.

The pretentiousness on show is mind-boggling!

Isn't that what this board is all about?

[T.D.]

Yeah, I want to hear the opinions. I reckon I can deal with any possible "pretentiousness", so long as the people involved have actually listened to the recordings in question. [Aside: I once lurked on a classical music forum where it gradually became clear that one of the most prolific commentors on /recommenders of "contemporary" recordings (he's all over the Amazon reviews, btw) had the disconcerting habit of pontificating on recordings he'd never heard... ]

Edited May 31, 2011 by T.D.

[Leeway]

Another vote for Brendel. I dig his combination of intellect, technique and commitment to the music. I'm not sure I dig his face on virtually every LP he put out. Not sure if that was pure egotism or a tongue-in-cheek campiness at work.

[J.A.W.]

Another vote for Brendel. I dig his combination of intellect, technique and commitment to the music. I'm not sure I dig his face on virtually every LP he put out. Not sure if that was pure egotism or a tongue-in-cheek campiness at work.

The LP and CD covers were designed by his last record company, the now defunct Philips label, not by Brendel himself

Edited June 1, 2011 by J.A.W.

[Chuck Nessa]

This thread has just won the 'Let's Play Classical Connoisseur Top Trumps' Award for 2011.

The pretentiousness on show is mind-boggling!

Now there's a smug response.

I enjoy "attitudes" and like to measure them against my opinions.

I think that is how we learn.

[Leeway]

Another vote for Brendel. I dig his combination of intellect, technique and commitment to the music. I'm not sure I dig his face on virtually every LP he put out. Not sure if that was pure egotism or a tongue-in-cheek campiness at work.

The LP and CD covers were designed by his last record company, the now defunct Philips label, not by Brendel himself

They must have loved his horn-rimmed Euro look I suppose Brendel himself was not an unwilling participant. In a way, it is very smart marketing. Seeing him on every cover provided instant identification, and in a way, a sense of knowing the artist. He always has this look, at once intellectual and a bit spacey. It wouldn't matter much --and indeed woul dbe quite a joke--if he couldn't play; the fact is, he had a wonderful approach to the music (and not just to the keyboard, as many virtuosos seem to have).

[.:.impossible]

I'm learning. Please don't let a smug comment deter the conversation. Thanks.

[A Lark Ascending]

I enjoy "attitudes" and like to measure them against my opinions. I think that is how we learn.

All we 'learn' from that are attitudes and how to strike them.

Lots of 'attitudes' here about Uchida, for example, but virtually nothing to explain why she is to be despised (even the purple passage in her favour from a few years back gets disowned without any explanation). I've no axe to grind about her music as I don't know her recordings. But this thread leaves me no wiser as to why I should be sneering at her. Though it certainly teaches me how.

Back to your discussion, chaps. I look forward to learning something.

Edited June 1, 2011 by A Lark Ascending

[MomsMobley]

Are you wearing chaps? Have you read "At Swim Two Birds"? A great Irish Western!

More pertinently, have you ever seen/heard a first rate performance of a Mozart opera, from "Idomeneo" on? I'd even grant you "Mitridate" in certain recordings. Would you say there were somewhat... "dramatic"?

While there are moments of repose in the piano concertos, any performance-- let alone set-- that underplays their great variety of dramatic situations is CRAP.

Uchida and Tate are a joke; she was a competent marketing trick when such could still be pulled off; that's she genuine Vienna-phile doesn't change the fact she's unimaginative-- or, if you wanna be generous-- that she imagine's a far more genteel and prissy composer than one I ever wanna hear.

Brendel is overrated by the Limeys and unpleasant to look at but before he became Venerated he could be okay-- and Neville Marriner is actually a terrific musician, if not best or most alert or creative in any one way. If there's a generalized goodness possible, he's it. Hogwood's is sorta similar as conductor, with a few higher peaks and valleys; Andrew Manze is mostly garbage-- it was just confusing, at first, to see a Limey paying lip-service to letting loose we thought he actually WOULD. Hardly. In nearly all repertoire the best French, German, Italian players waste him. Some Brits can get wooly but moreso under foreign conductors than their own (who aren't all snoozes mind you but in Mozart and before they usually are.)

The Dutch are a goddamn puzzle. Some of the best and some as lame as anyone; same goes for Belgians and all those dreary Leonhardt/Kuijkenites. It was better before they got their chops up in that THE STRUGGLE added character their later facility smoothed out.

In any event, I forgot Robert Casadesus-- any performance from whom kills everything possible from an Uchida, Anda, Perahia, Ashkenazy (the last has made some nice recordings as a conductor btw, better by far than most of his later piano work).

You forget, apparently, that classical marketing was really quite a thing, once upon a time, and that if you were not among the chosen the few, the attn you'd get-- and retail exposure (when there was such)-- exponentially less than the stars, quickly diminishing to nothing.

Also, don't miss DINK JOHNSON!!!

It's never too late.

[B. Goren.]

I have the Brilliant Classic box set (the 40 CDs version, not the 170) with all the piano concertos played by Derek Han and the Philharmonia orchestra and I think their performance is great. In addition I am familiar with Brendel and Perahia recordings and I think they are also worth listening, to say the least. The only famous recording I'm not familiar with is Mitsuko Uchida's recordings.

[Larry Kart]

I enjoy "attitudes" and like to measure them against my opinions. I think that is how we learn.

All we 'learn' from that are attitudes and how to strike them.

Lots of 'attitudes' here about Uchida, for example, but virtually nothing to explain why she is to be despised (even the purple passage in her favour from a few years back gets disowned without any explanation). I've no axe to grind about her music as I don't know her recordings. But this thread leaves me no wiser as to why I should be sneering at her. Though it certainly teaches me how.

Back to your discussion, chaps. I look forward to learning something.

If I'm the author of the now-disowned purple passage in [uchida's] favour from a few years back" that you have in mind, I don't think it was a purple passage but fairly precise about what I then felt her virtues to be. And I don't disown my characterization there of how that music works but of how well Uchida realizes it. I now don't care for her playing because over time and with further listening experience it strikes me as very prissy and genteel (echoing Moms Mabley here -- when you're right, you're right) and above all nearly monochromatic, albeit (as they say) "pearly." In this respect, in somewhat similar ways, Perlemuter and Rubinstein are great antidotes. Drama in the Mozart piano concertos (as MM says) typically is of the essence, and in my experience what might be called coloristic/timbral means and understanding are among the chief ways to get there.

[A Lark Ascending]

Thank you. That's an argument rather than an assertion and helps me understand why you feel the way you do.

I've only known the later concertos through a mixture of Schiff, Gulda, Gilels and Pollini and, not being a Mozart obsessive, they've served me well. I bought the Anda set last year to get to hear the earlier music. Apparently I shouldn't have according to Clementine but I've enjoyed it.

Edited June 1, 2011 by A Lark Ascending

[Larry Kart]

... in my experience what might be called coloristic/timbral means and understanding are among the chief ways to get there.

There are times when I feel that Mozart is Debussy's key precursor, that in Mozart coloristic/timbral factors are not decorative but structural and/or that from which structures flow. IIRC, Charles Rosen says some shrewd things about this in "The Classical Style," writing about K. 364.

[Mark Stryker]

Generally speaking, I also favor the dramatic and public over the genteel and private in Mozart, but I have a different view of some of the recordings here than others have expressed. In particular, I like Barenboim (both the early recordings on EMI and more so the later ones on Teldec) because I think he captures the theatrical qualities and the wide range of emotions. I think Barenboim's knowledge of the operas from conducting helps bring these qualities out in his piano performances.

I would also say that this is rich music that rewards a variety of approaches, and as a veteran of countless live performances of the concertos over the last 18 years, I would add that the difference between satisfying and boring performances is not only an ear for the drama but also a sense of spontaneity (another Barenboim strength for me, though some may find him undisciplined).I know, that feeling of spontaneity is key to performances of just about any music, but Mozart performances especially die if they sound overly mechanical or too smooth and muzak-y. But then, overly mannered or forced emotion in Mozart are sins of another sort, and I've heard plenty of those too. It's always been interesting to me that I've heard far more forgettable performances of the Mozart concertos than any of the other standard repertoire piano concertos, from Beethoven through Rachmaninoff. The balance in Mozart -- between intensity and repose, grace and guts, pulse and relaxation, respect for classical structure but also depth of feeling -- is really hard to get right.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Mark Stryker

[Larry Kart]

It's always been interesting to me that I've heard far more forgettable performances of the Mozart concertos than any of the other standard repertoire piano concertos, from Beethoven through Rachmaninoff. The balance in Mozart -- between intensity and repose, grace and guts, pulse and relaxation, respect for classical structure but also depth of feeling -- is really hard to get right.

That's been my experience, too, darn it. All I can do is point to/enjoy the pianists who bring the music to life for me (e.g, Perlemuter and Rubinstein) and wonder why so many others don't.

I'm reminded, too, of a revelatory performance of the Clarinet Concerto with Karl Leister and (to my disbelief) Karajan (on EMI, in a box with other Mozart wind concerti played by BPO principals of the time). Not that there aren't plenty of nice or better recordings of the work, but there was a certain "instantaniety" of rhythm to Leister's phrasing that made this familiar piece seem like I'd never before heard all that was there.

[Mark Stryker]

It's always been interesting to me that I've heard far more forgettable performances of the Mozart concertos than any of the other standard repertoire piano concertos, from Beethoven through Rachmaninoff. The balance in Mozart -- between intensity and repose, grace and guts, pulse and relaxation, respect for classical structure but also depth of feeling -- is really hard to get right.

That's been my experience, too, darn it. All I can do is point to/enjoy the pianists who bring the music to life for me (e.g, Perlemuter and Rubinstein) and wonder why so many others don't.

I'm reminded, too, of a revelatory performance of the Clarinet Concerto with Karl Leister and (to my disbelief) Karajan (on EMI, in a box with other Mozart wind concerti played by BPO principals of the time). Not that there aren't plenty of nice or better recordings of the work, but there was a certain "instantaniety" of rhythm to Leister's phrasing that made this familiar piece seem like I'd never before heard all that was there.

It has something to do with the fundamental transparency of the music and the purity of the melodic expression. It looks fairly simple on the page and doesn't require finger-busting technique, but it's tricky to get to the emotional core of the music. Sometimes chefs will say that the hardest thing to do is to perfectly roast a chicken -- not fancy techniques, no fancy sauces, no layers of ingredients. Just pure fundamental technique. Not the most sublime metaphor perhaps, but maybe great Mozart is as elusive as the ideal roast chicken.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Mark Stryker

[Chuck Nessa]

What works for you works for you. You are not defined by your tastes, no matter what the middle school teacher says.

[MomsMobley]

it's not THAT elusive!! it's only the modern instrument perfect technique hegemony that makes it seem so, also the gross misunderstanding of Mozartean 'style,' which even at its most 'galant' should never be precious, any more than CPE Bach should be precious. death to public radio Mozart!!

also, there's PLENTY of Mozart that can be played for background-- most of the serenades, dances, etc-- it's asinine, and just plain wrong to treat the PCs that.

by far the most important thing is to understand the operatic rhetoric of these works which-- like an opera-- DO allow for a variety of valid performance depending on circumstance, they should all be DISTINCT (if not Dink Johnson).

the use of period orchestras is an important step in that direction thought not the only one; Schnabel, for instance, figured out a legit approach with people far more versed in Wagner and Brahms.

the real question as with Handel is ORNAMENTATION.

try these on like your moms favorite panties--

K. 595--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zfNW9XQ9ME

K. 540--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y36tQ56C3b8

Robert Levin on Mozart sonatas--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWKbOGMqDVw

Bilson Haydn--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvbWnR5QKFE

Dink Johnson >>>>>>> Keith Jarrett too (tho' Jarrett's no worse than Uchida)

It's always been interesting to me that I've heard far more forgettable performances of the Mozart concertos than any of the other standard repertoire piano concertos, from Beethoven through Rachmaninoff. The balance in Mozart -- between intensity and repose, grace and guts, pulse and relaxation, respect for classical structure but also depth of feeling -- is really hard to get right.

That's been my experience, too, darn it. All I can do is point to/enjoy the pianists who bring the music to life for me (e.g, Perlemuter and Rubinstein) and wonder why so many others don't.

I'm reminded, too, of a revelatory performance of the Clarinet Concerto with Karl Leister and (to my disbelief) Karajan (on EMI, in a box with other Mozart wind concerti played by BPO principals of the time). Not that there aren't plenty of nice or better recordings of the work, but there was a certain "instantaniety" of rhythm to Leister's phrasing that made this familiar piece seem like I'd never before heard all that was there.

It has something to do with the fundamental transparency of the music and the purity of the melodic expression. It looks fairly simple on the page and doesn't require finger-busting technique, but it's tricky to get to the emotional core of the music. Sometimes chefs will say that the hardest thing to do is to perfectly roast a chicken -- not fancy techniques, no fancy sauces, no layers of ingredients. Just pure fundamental technique. Not the most sublime metaphor perhaps, but maybe great Mozart is as elusive as the ideal roast chicken.

[Mark Stryker]

it's not THAT elusive!! it's only the modern instrument perfect technique hegemony that makes it seem so, also the gross misunderstanding of Mozartean 'style,' which even at its most 'galant' should never be precious, any more than CPE Bach should be precious. death to public radio Mozart!!

also, there's PLENTY of Mozart that can be played for background-- most of the serenades, dances, etc-- it's asinine, and just plain wrong to treat the PCs that.

by far the most important thing is to understand the operatic rhetoric of these works which-- like an opera-- DO allow for a variety of valid performance depending on circumstance, they should all be DISTINCT (if not Dink Johnson).

the use of period orchestras is an important step in that direction thought not the only one; Schnabel, for instance, figured out a legit approach with people far more versed in Wagner and Brahms.

the real question as with Handel is ORNAMENTATION.

try these on like your moms favorite panties--

K. 595--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zfNW9XQ9ME

K. 540--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y36tQ56C3b8

Robert Levin on Mozart sonatas--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWKbOGMqDVw

Bilson Haydn--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvbWnR5QKFE

Dink Johnson >>>>>>> Keith Jarrett too (tho' Jarrett's no worse than Uchida)

It's always been interesting to me that I've heard far more forgettable performances of the Mozart concertos than any of the other standard repertoire piano concertos, from Beethoven through Rachmaninoff. The balance in Mozart -- between intensity and repose, grace and guts, pulse and relaxation, respect for classical structure but also depth of feeling -- is really hard to get right.

That's been my experience, too, darn it. All I can do is point to/enjoy the pianists who bring the music to life for me (e.g, Perlemuter and Rubinstein) and wonder why so many others don't.

I'm reminded, too, of a revelatory performance of the Clarinet Concerto with Karl Leister and (to my disbelief) Karajan (on EMI, in a box with other Mozart wind concerti played by BPO principals of the time). Not that there aren't plenty of nice or better recordings of the work, but there was a certain "instantaniety" of rhythm to Leister's phrasing that made this familiar piece seem like I'd never before heard all that was there.

It has something to do with the fundamental transparency of the music and the purity of the melodic expression. It looks fairly simple on the page and doesn't require finger-busting technique, but it's tricky to get to the emotional core of the music. Sometimes chefs will say that the hardest thing to do is to perfectly roast a chicken -- not fancy techniques, no fancy sauces, no layers of ingredients. Just pure fundamental technique. Not the most sublime metaphor perhaps, but maybe great Mozart is as elusive as the ideal roast chicken.

I stand by the statement that great performances of the Mozart piano concertos are more elusive than great performances of the rest of the standard piano concerto repertoire -- my concert-going and recording-listening experience tells me so (and apparently L.K. too), though I take the point that's it's not a matter of magic or metaphysics but rather savvy musical understanding that leads to the promised land. Also agree on the operatic spirit of the concertos. Still, there's something about the music that makes it more tricky to pull off then other works.

Yes, the Serenades and lots of other works were essentially written as "occasional" music -- though I'm often reminded of a phrase that Bernard Holland, late of the Times and in surely one of his better moments, once bestowed on the "Gran Partita" (Serenade No. 10) -- "dinner music for the Gods." (Not looking to re-open old wounds and/or rants viz. Holland, but that's a phrase worth stealing.)

For what it's worth, I'd gladly give up all of Mozart's symphonies, piano concertos and sonatas, Violin Concertos and everything else, even the Clarinet Concerto, IF I could take the three Da Ponte operas, "Magic Flute" and the last 10 string quartets.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Mark Stryker