# Responses to Different Performances of Works



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I image most or all of us have heard different performances of a work and preferred one to the other. However, of works I enjoy, only once have I heard a version that I actually disliked.* When I joined TC, I was surprised to often see people suggesting someone should hear a particular version of a work if that person had said she dislikes it. My experience is that differing versions can be appreciated somewhat more or less but very rarely make the difference between liking and disliking a work.

Given the significant number of suggestions after someone has said she dislikes a work, I wonder if others find that different versions _often do_ make the difference between enjoying and not enjoying a work. So are you more like me, and other versions will not make the difference between liking and disliking a work? Or do you often find that another version can make that difference?

Examples are welcome.

* Mendelssohn's Concerto for Violin, Piano, and Strings (Kremer and Argerich)


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Given the generally high level of musicanship that most professionals have, I rarely think that I hear a bad recording. I will disagree with tempo choices, rubato, and general attitude that performers have towards a piece, but these are subjective judgements, in the main. Then there is the whole HIPP vs modern instruments issue...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

For anyone still listening to romanticized, anachronistic Bach played with full modern orchestra, heavy vibrato, slides, piano, etc; and claims to HATE Bach, please try a dose of HIP-harpsichord instead of piano, reduced chamber orchestra with period instruments, etc.

If you love Bach played in romantic style, fine. This post wasn't meant for you.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

In almost every case, a different interpretation would not change my mind about the piece itself. However, the first time I really enjoyed Schumann's symphonies was when I heard Yannick Nézet-Séguin's recording. It's as if, for the first time, what was actually on the score made sense and corresponded to what I heard.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I'm definitely the wrong person to ask since I like everything except two dudes.

I really do enjoy different interpretations of the same work. It's like a Picasso painting, cubist style... different perspectives on the same object.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The biggest difference, and a most consistent example of disliking to liking is with HIP. I have shown people who dislike Baroque music performed incorrectly on old style big orchestras and then switching to HIP, then enjoying it after!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

The most dramatic example that happened to me recently is Varese's _Amériques_. I felt the siren just sounds silly and completely out of place. I have the Naxos version which is usually good enough for exploring composers. But then I heard a version on YouTube -- I think it was Riccardo Chailly -- and this made all the difference. The siren does not go through its entire up and down cycle. In this version it climbs to a different higher note and at different speeds throughout. This sounds far more expressive than the Naxos version. I had no idea there could be such a thing as a virtuoso sirenist.

Links below for anyone bored enough to compare the two. The siren is most prominent toward the last quarter or so.

Naxos:





Chailly:


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> The biggest difference, and a most consistent example of disliking to liking is with HIP. I have shown people who dislike Baroque music performed incorrectly on old style big orchestras and then switching to HIP, then enjoying it after!


That explains why I'm HIP to the game.

Honestly I enjoy both HIP and non-HIP performances. Not a stickler except opera cuts which I dislike.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Weston said:


> The most dramatic example that happened to me recently is Varese's _Amériques_. I felt the siren just sounds silly and completely out of place. I have the Naxos version which is usually good enough for exploring composers. But then I heard a version on YouTube -- I think it was Riccardo Chailly -- and this made all the difference. The siren does not go through its entire up and down cycle. In this version it climbs to a different higher note and at different speeds throughout. This sounds far more expressive than the Naxos version. I had no idea there could be such a thing as a virtuoso sirenist.
> 
> Links below for anyone bored enough to compare the two. The siren is most prominent toward the last quarter or so.
> 
> ...


The use of siren really destroys a lot of Varese compositions for me. Many of Varese's works sound to my ears close to being masterpieces, but something is usually done with the sounds (in many cases the siren) that ends up rendering them (to me)as being somewhat trivial or cheezy.

Unfortunately I already have the Chailly versions, so those are the interpretations I have heard.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Weston said:


> The most dramatic example that happened to me recently is Varese's _Amériques_. I felt the siren just sounds silly and completely out of place. I have the Naxos version which is usually good enough for exploring composers. But then I heard a version on YouTube -- I think it was Riccardo Chailly -- and this made all the difference. The siren does not go through its entire up and down cycle. In this version it climbs to a different higher note and at different speeds throughout. This sounds far more expressive than the Naxos version. I had no idea there could be such a thing as a virtuoso sirenist.


My wife recently played _Amériques_, and I thought the siren sounded quite nice. She told me that at the first rehearsal the siren apparently couldn't be stopped and continued to sound until the percussionist left the stage.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

My experience is like CoAG's. I was always favorably disposed to Mahler 4, but one performance raised my interest considerably. It was Ivan Fischer stepping in as a last minute replacement conductor with the New York Philharmonic. Great nuance and control of tempo. Maxim Vengerov's performance of the Shostakovich A minor concerto had a similar effect on my appreciation of that work. And a great and sensitive student performance of Carter's Cello Sonata sold me on a work I didn't know and have found less compelling in recorded performances.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I can usually tell whether I will like a work regardless of the performance, but only a persuasive (to me) performance will tell me _how__ much_ I might like it. There are works I generally don't care for which a certain performance might cause me to like more than usual. However, there are types of music in which the performance is unusually essential to the actual character of the music. I'm thinking of music of the 18th century and earlier, in which period instruments and performing practices can result in a radically different sound to the music (I generally prefer HIP but not always), and opera and other vocal music, in which the individual qualities of singers can make such an extreme difference to my enjoyment that it's hard to tell whether it's the music I'm liking or disliking or the voices and interpretations of the singers performing it. There's a certain amount of opera - and song too - that I find uninteresting except when great vocal artists are present to reveal the potential of the music for powerful expression. Do I actually like the music in such cases? Hard to say.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I have addressed this issue before in other threads. See: http://www.talkclassical.com/33829-multiple-recordings-same-symphony-3.html#post716294

There is really nothing more that I can add.

superhorn submitted the following excellent post that addressed this issue: http://www.talkclassical.com/37915-i-have-5-lvb.html#post872912


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I can usually tell whether I will like a work regardless of the performance, but only a persuasive (to me) performance will tell me _how__ much_ I might like it. There are works I generally don't care for which a certain performance might cause me to like more than usual. However, there are types of music in which the performance is unusually essential to the actual character of the music. I'm thinking of music of the 18th century and earlier, in which period instruments and performing practices can result in a radically different sound to the music (I generally prefer HIP but not always), and opera and other vocal music, in which the individual qualities of singers can make such an extreme difference to my enjoyment that it's hard to tell whether it's the music I'm liking or disliking or the voices and interpretations of the singers performing it. There's a certain amount of opera - and song too - that I find uninteresting except when great vocal artists are present to reveal the potential of the music for powerful expression. Do I actually like the music in such cases? Hard to say.


Just that.

I can't imagine a more transformative 'Midas touch' that turns an ultra-mundane work of art into an extraordinary feat of Eternal Awe than Callas' interpretation(s) of Cherubini's _Medea_.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Just that.
> 
> I can't imagine a more transformative 'Midas touch' that turns an ultra-mundane work of art into an extraordinary feat of Eternal Awe than Callas' interpretation(s) of Cherubini's _Medea_.


Agree about Callas, but not about Cherubini. Beethoven and Brahms thought _Medea_ was great dramatic music. I suspect it seems mundane partly because we don't know how to perform it. Remember that Callas and company were singing recitatives by Lachner, not Cherubini's original with spoken dialogue. It would be interesting to hear an HIP performance of the original, in French of course - but the problem remains of who now could do justice to the title role. No one, I'm guessing.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> So are you more like me, and other versions will not make the difference between liking and disliking a work? Or do you often find that another version can make that difference?


I'm more like you, mmsbls 

I don't think I have ever heard a performance I intensely disliked. The performance is not going to ruin a great piece for me. Perhaps I'm too careful in getting only big name performers? I'm listening to the piece and the composer foremost. I can hear past the performance to the piece.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I think there's a big difference between commercial recordings and live performances. I often attend recitals at local venues (retirement communities etc.) and really enjoy performances by talented amateurs of less-than-stellar status. I might be disappointed if I heard these on CDs, but it's good to hear amateurs making music and, really, doing it quite well.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

tdc said:


> Many of Varese's works sound to my ears close to being masterpieces, but something is usually done with the sounds (in many cases the siren) that ends up rendering them (to me)as being somewhat trivial or cheezy.


I know it's a bit off topic but this is exactly how I feel about Billy Joel, only instead of sirens it's his chorus'.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

To answer on point... when I was just starting out as a listener I was incredible young and stupid and bought the cheapest recordings I could find (all at Borders or Barnes & Noble but the internet wasn't up yet). 

Anyway buying cheap you get some of the less known, lesser attentive to detail conductors (usually from Texas :devil: ) and then being young and stupid and soaking in the great music of the world through these cheap recordings only I did a silly thing. I got very attached to the way I heard these works and as I got older and begin to see the difference between orchestral control and conducting it was still very hard to let go of these cheaper recordings, some of what had just been engrained in me as the definitive performance. 

And the moral of the story is kids are not smart.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> When I joined TC, I was surprised to often see people suggesting someone should hear a particular version of a work if that person had said she dislikes it. My experience is that differing versions can be appreciated somewhat more or less but very rarely make the difference between liking and disliking a work.


I'm pretty sure I've recommended recordings to try to turn someone around on a given work, though I don't think it's ever worked on me--what an obnoxious habit, now that you point it out! I think I'll stop doing that :lol:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Harpsichord to piano or vice versa works too.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> Harpsichord to piano or vice versa works too.


I will definitely reconsider Chopin's scherzi when played on a harpsichord!!!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I will definitely reconsider Chopin's scherzi when played on a harpsichord!!!


There are a couple of really excellent recordings out there of Scarlatti sonatas played on the accordion. So why not Chopin on the harpsichord?


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

KenOC said:


> There are a couple of really excellent recordings out there of Scarlatti sonatas played on the accordion. So why not Chopin on the harpsichord?


What can we expect next? Bach's organ works transcribed for eight piccolos and contrabassoon?
(Though I wouldn't be suprised if there was such a recording on YouTube)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Beethoven was a great transcriber. His 2nd Symphony is available as a piano trio and works quite well. He claimed that only the composer could do a decent transcription, though his claim may have been prompted by commercial considerations.

His transcription of the Violin Concerto for piano is a bit disappointing, though.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> When I joined TC, I was surprised to often see people suggesting someone should hear a particular version of a work if that person had said she dislikes it. My experience is that differing versions can be appreciated somewhat more or less but very rarely make the difference between liking and disliking a work.


Thank you, my feelings exactly. In 30 years of classical music I have never changed my opinion on a work based on a different performance.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Beethoven was a great transcriber. His 2nd Symphony is available as a piano trio and works quite well. He claimed that only the composer could do a decent transcription, though his claim may have been prompted by commercial considerations.
> 
> His transcription of the Violin Concerto for piano is a bit disappointing, though.


Have you heard LVB's transcription of the Great Fugue for 4-hand piano? It sounds pretty cool--surprised it's not performed more often.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

As an interesting note, I have *professors of music* who changed their minds on the music when listening to a decent performance for the *first time* and have prejudged the work as weak purely from reading the score only before. Now that is quite something.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I'll echo the comments made earlier about HIP: I generally didn't like Baroque music until I started to hear HIP recordings. Although I'll always gravitate towards HIP, these days I'm more forgiving of a non-HIP version: once I've accomodated myself to the sound, I can appreciate it on its own terms.

There have been a handful of other works that I've not really cared for, but then I've heard a particular recording and have been impressed. But how much of that can be attributed to the performance alone, and how much to my deliberate willingness to have my mind changed, I don't know.

For the great majority of music, though, it's the music itself I'm responding to. I tend not to be concerned with getting multiple versions of the same piece.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

There are many pieces of music that I didn't enjoy on first or second exposure that I subsequently came to love on repeated exposure. Usually I was just in a more receptive mood when the piece clicked with me but sometimes it is the difference in the performance


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

MoonlightSonata said:


> What can we expect next? Bach's organ works transcribed for eight piccolos and contrabassoon?
> (Though I wouldn't be suprised if there was such a recording on YouTube)


I heard that when Mrs. Bach was asleep, Johann was busy attending to how his organ works.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> As an interesting note, I have *professors of music* who changed their minds on the music when listening to a decent performance for the *first time* and have prejudged the work as weak purely from reading the score only before. Now that is quite something.


Schumann, examining the score of Wagner's _Tannhauser_, sniffed and said "Pfui! This Wagner person cannot write two good bars together!" After seeing a performance, he said "Well! In the theater it all strikes one very differently."


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> In almost every case, a different interpretation would not change my mind about the piece itself. However, the first time I really enjoyed Schumann's symphonies was when I heard Yannick Nézet-Séguin's recording. It's as if, for the first time, what was actually on the score made sense and corresponded to what I heard.


Yes! For myself, it was John Eliot Gardiner's Schumann symphonies that made me finally come around. They came to life all of a sudden.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> As an interesting note, I have *professors of music* who changed their minds on the music when listening to a decent performance for the *first time* and have prejudged the work as weak purely from reading the score only before. Now that is quite something.


That is interesting. Though I can technically read music, I can't hear the work by just looking at a score. I've always wondered what composers and others hear in their head when they read a score. I imagine that the scene in Amadeus where Salieri is reading Mozart's scores and hears full orchestras might be a bit overblown.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> I imagine that the scene in Amadeus where Salieri is reading Mozart's scores and hears full orchestras might be a bit overblown.


It's actually pretty common, any composer who's had the extensive ear-training and aptitude to make it that far as a professional would easily be able to do the same thing. And composers today work with scores written for much larger orchestras, reading a classical era score and knowing exactly what it sounds like would be a piece of cake(for them, anyway).


----------

