Originally posted by smittims
View Post
What Classical Music Are You listening to Now? IV
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
Well, Schubert certainly asked him (and everyone else) so to do. To be honest I think Brendel’s neglecting to do so shows his limits, and thank goodness in that respect for Richter, Schiff, Staier and others. As far as I’m concerned the first-time bar in the first movement of D960 is utterly shattering in the best possible way.
-
-
Well, we've discussed this often over the years. I disagree, in fact I think it shows Brendel thinking about the music, this particular piece. His musical intelligence rather than his limits.There's a lot of repetition in Schubert, as it is. And his development sections don't go for a 'working out' of the main material (which would therefore benefit from the repeat) in the manner of Beethoven or Mozart (sometimes!). And the first-time bar? ....no, I don't like it, don't think it works (Brendel's view). But then I learnt the piece from performances that left it out!Originally posted by oliver sudden View PostWell, Schubert certainly asked him (and everyone else) so to do. To be honest I think Brendel’s neglecting to do so shows his limits, and thank goodness in that respect for Richter, Schiff, Staier and others. As far as I’m concerned the first-time bar in the first movement of D960 is utterly shattering in the best possible way.
But I've heard the counter arguments many times, of course.
Comment
-
-
I think it's a good idea to be open-minded about interpretation. Saying 'Schubert tells us... Beettoven tells us ... ' as a way of interpreting their markings inthe score, is a bit uncomfortably like those people who say 'God tells us in the BIble...' . And it was quite normal to omit repeats fifty and more years ago. Kempff and Haebler do.
Brendel was in any case an innovator in other ways. I think his was the first recording of the Klavierstuck D946 no. 1 to omit the second interlude, which Schubert crossed out in the manuscript and Brahms well-meaningly re-instated in the first printed edition. The firsttwo recordings , fro 1956 (Arrau and Gieseking) include it. Brendel was followed by most if not all pianists since.
Comment
-
-
Amilcare Ponchielli
‘La Gioconda’ (1876 version)
La Gioconda – Renata Tebaldi (soprano); Enzo Grimaldo – Carlo Bergonzi (tenor); Barnaba – Robert Merrill (baritone);
Alvise Badoero – Nicolai Ghiuselev (bass); Laura Badoero – Marilyn Horne (mezzo); La Cieca – Oralia Domínguez (mezzo)
Coro e Orchestra dell'Accademia di Santa Cecilia / Lamberto Gardelli
Recorded 1967, Sala Accademica, Conservatorio di Santa Cecilia, Rome
Decca, 3 CDs
Comment
-
-
I'm generally not bothered too much either way and consider the question to be one of interpretation by the conductor/player concerned.Originally posted by Alison View PostFor some reason I never object to repeats even or especially in Schubert.
There are one or two exceptions: the finale repeat in the Schubert 9 shouldn't be done and the repeat in Brahms 3 first movement should. Also, I prefer the repeat in the scherzo of the Beethoven 5. All in my view, of course, and the absence or inclusion of them isn't a deal breaker."The sound is the handwriting of the conductor" - Bernard Haitink
Comment
-
-
Mozart: Clarinet Quintet, Antoine du Bavier with 'The New Italian Quartet' (actually our old friends the Quartetto Italiano ).
Beethoven , quartet in E flat, op. 74, 'Harp'. The Budapest Quartet.
Two lovely early-1950s Lps , still sounding well.
I wonder how many people were disappointed with the 'Harp' quartet on finding that Beethoven didn't include a part for the harp
. I remember feeling the same when I found that Purcell's 'bell' anthem doesn't actually include a bell. I then found one by Bach that does , only to be told it's not really by Bach!
Comment
-
-
Equally, those guitar enthusiasts who spot Ibert's, Française: 'Guitarre' , may be disappointed. It's played on the piano.Originally posted by smittims View Post
I wonder how many people were disappointed with the 'Harp' quartet on finding that Beethoven didn't include a part for the harp....
Comment
-
-
Mozart: Divertimento in B flat, K 287.
Schubert: Trout Quintet.
...both in early 1950s Decca recording by members of the Veinna Octet. Willi Boskovsky clearly revelling in the first violin parts of both works. I felt more comfortable lowering the pitch a notch or two as I often do on1950s Vienna recordings, after checking them with a tuning fork. .
Comment
-
-
I recently got to know K287 via a nice recent Brilliant Classics disc . According to the Musicweb review Mozart also enjoyed playing that violin part, commenting:Originally posted by smittims View PostMozart: Divertimento in B flat, K 287.
Schubert: Trout Quintet.
...both in early 1950s Decca recording by members of the Veinna Octet. Willi Boskovsky clearly revelling in the first violin parts of both works. I felt more comfortable lowering the pitch a notch or two as I often do on1950s Vienna recordings, after checking them with a tuning fork. .
"Everyone looked astonished, for I played as though I was the greatest violinist in Europe."
Comment
-
Comment