|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.215.1.171
In Reply to: The old different strokes game posted by psgary on March 9, 2007 at 22:52:54:
What would you consider a top-drawer performance, may I ask? Such feedback can reveal things I may have personally overlooked in the past.A lot of this comes down to differences on how people think a composer ought to sound like, and how musicians and conductor ought to approach the composer.
Follow Ups:
Though I'm not familiar with the pianist, Dutoit has proved himself as a conductor, so if that's the way he chooses to interpret, I don't doubt its validity. I love his version of the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto with Kyung Wha Chung. It's the best, to my ears.The soloist and band in this Tchaikovsky seem top-rate. She has a lot of energy at times. I would feel foolish saying the performance lacks credibility or artistic merit. It just doesn't strike my fancy.
To expand slightly on my point about Tchaikovsky, I think he's been given a bit of a bad rap. Many seem to view him as extremely emotional and lacking depth. Yet too many interpretations of old Petey Boy reduce his music to bathos, which seems unfair, though I'm not saying Dutoit's version does that. I feel his music often needs a lighter touch to bring out the best in it. Emphasizing his lyricism balances the obvious emotion in his work.
Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony is a common victim of this overly emotional approach. If you haven't heard Mravinsky's interpretation of it, I suggest you give it a listen. He's the only conductor I've heard so far who doesn't make the fourth movement an exercise in self pity.
Since you asked, as noted in my previous post, the opening tempo of the first movement is very traditional. Many conductors use a similar one. But the descending phrase that opens the concerto is extremely dramatic. That's what's so captivating. But the drama is self evident. There is no need to reinforce it. I think the tempo chosen tends to make it too heavy. Though the theme is dramatic, I feel it can soar, but Dutoit's tempo keeps it too earthbound.
Since you pointed to the fourth movement, my preference is for a more lyrical approach. For example, at about the 2:19 mark, when the theme is being developed, the pianist hesitates a nanosecond before playing the second chord. That is interesting, but I prefer greater flow there. Perhaps the slight synchopation emphasizes the drama. My feeling is that Tchaikovsky is inherently dramatic in most of his work and doesn't need much reinforcement.
She does a grand job of fireworks at the end and brings the work to a stirring climax, so I can't argue with her artistic skills and see why you are impressed. Mine is merely a difference of opinion, not a criticism of her abilities. I probably would have joined in the cheers. But given a choice of a different interpretation . . .
The interesting thing is I think what kills Tchaikovsky in a performance is when the continuity and "animation" of the melodic line is not sustained. Which is what I say is exceptional about this performance. The secondary aspect is the episodic contrast, it's so difficult to find a pianist who can play both thunderous during the fireworks and so delicate during the legatos. (This is what I thought separated Vladimir Horowitz and Antonio Barbosa from the rest. With Rachmaninoff and Chopin respectively.) This too I thought was exceptional about the performance. A third aspect was how Dutoit kept the orchestra "restrained" during the accompaniment. I think this is a common failing in most performances of the Tchaikovsky First Concerto (and obvious in the other YouTube performances). Combined with the "continuity of melodic line" I mentioned above, it had that rare "Fritz Reiner" quality that really brought out the depth in the composer. (My favorite part of the Heifetz Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto is Reiner's intro at the very beginning. This is beyond definitive.) This enabled secondary lines in the orchestra to really sing (those wind calls during the buildup to the climax), bringing on another dimension to the music. And most-importantly, another striking difference in the performance, it enabled the pianist to play with greater dynamic depth, in the scope of the piano itself. (Every time I play that performance, I notice new facets of the work that was captured in that performance.)What's so frustrating about Tchaikovsky, for me, is I think I've heard such performances in the past, and it kills me whenever I hear performances that seem as if nobody on stage has a clue. Tchaikovsky done wrong, to me, can sound so cold, shallow, and lifeless. I think this is why opinion of the composer is all over the place. But when Tchaikovsky is done right, in my opinion, I cannot speak of another composer, aside from maybe Mozart or Wagner, the evokes a musical emotion to the extreme.
"Animation" of the melodic line? An interesting thought. I did find that the first movement became more interesting to me after the first section was finished. It gained a bit more life. Again, this is just my impression, not a critique of the performance. I find no fault with the performance intellectually. It seemed well thought out.Yes, finding someone who can bang as well as tinkle isn't easy, and the Tchaikovsky 1st is easy prey for bangers. And Dutoit did a good job of accompanying the piano, which is the job of an orchestra much of the time in a concerto.
There was a hilarious cut on an old vinyl recording of the Hoffnung Music Festival. It was a concerto for piano VS. orchestra. One of them played the Grieg concerto and the other the Tchaikovsky. I can't remember which but it was a scream, and all too true much of the time. Whose ego will win, the conductor's or the soloist's? More people should remember that performers are there to serve the music, not the other way around.
Perhaps because of Tchaikovsky's extraordinary gift for melody he is viewed as easy to play, and thus, the music of choice for too many mediocre artists. Anyone can play the 1st, right?
Then there is the sensitivity of the music. Again, that is easily mistaken for maudlin sentimentality. Many people mistake feeling for emotion. I use the latter in the sense of basic animal reaction and the former as representing something deeper, something not alien to intellect but a complement.
There is a great deal of feeling in Tchaikovsky but restraint must be taken in interpretation. From all accounts, he was an intelligent person and too often intellect is left out of performances of his works. Again, I think, that's due in large part to the "whistle factor". Tchaikovsky is easy to whistle and some people mistake that for lack of depth, which has often baffled me. Just because something is pretty doesn't mean it's shallow. Why is it gorgeous paintings aren't accused of being facile, but beautiful melodies are often suspect?
I agree with your note about performances of Tchaikovsky in the past. Perhaps it is difficult to escape the shallowness of our age, regardless of the area of society examined. The arts are not separate but usually a reflection of the times.
Thanks for providing that performance. While I might not want a recording of it, it got me examining Tchaikovsky again, and it was a very worthwhile version of the piece. If you're interested, there are two recordings of the 1st that I've run into whose tempo in the first movement is more to my liking. One is conducted by Vladimir Ashkenazy leading the Berlin Philharmonic on EMI and the other is Alexander Lazarev conducting the BBC Symphony. That's on Hyperion. Although neither is necessarily superior to the YouTube performance, they provide worthy examples to my ear of Tchaikovsky done right.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: