# "Performance-sensitive" composers



## Rubens (Nov 5, 2017)

By "performance-sensitiveness", I mean that the enjoyment of the composer's music strongly depends on the quality of the performance.

IMO, some composers are more performance-sensitive than others.
For example, I find Mozart and Brahms unbearably boring unless they are played masterfully. On the other hand, the beauty Bach's music seems to "come through" even in average performances. Same with Puccini, Rachmaninoff, Prokofieff, even Mahler to some extent.

What are in your opinion the most performance-sensitive composers? And which ones do you find less performance-sensitive? What do you think makes a composer's music more or less performance-sensitive?
Btw, I don't think this has anything to do with the composer's "greatness".


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I certainly agree about Mozart although I am not so sure about it needing the playing to be masterful as many that I reject are very eminent. So for me it is more about it being played to my taste. For the rest I can find a lot of music that I know really well and have listened to hundreds of times will only interest me in really excellent performances. Beethoven, Brahms and Sibelius that is merely competent or average bores me these days. I think I may agree that Bach can survive many performances.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Rubens said:


> By "performance-sensitiveness", I mean that the enjoyment of the composer's music strongly depends on the quality of the performance.
> 
> IMO, some composers are more performance-sensitive than others.
> For example, I find Mozart and Brahms unbearably boring unless they are played masterfully. On the other hand, the beauty Bach's music seems to "come through" even in average performances. Same with Puccini, Rachmaninoff, Prokofieff, even Mahler to some extent.
> ...


This topic wqas on my mind the other day as I was driving listening to the FM CM station here in New Orleans, there was Bach work playing,,,and the period instrucments used were pitch pefect,,,not too old fashioned sounding,,and not too modern sounding PLUS the Los Angles Chamber playser were performaing with the ideal tempo, textures, pgrasing for Bach,,,The thought occurred to me, some composers need a orch/chamber group in touch with the composers sound world.

Bach needs superior performaers, /properly toned instruments to bring out the full colors of the works. In piano solo works, the tmber and tones make all the difference in how the music projects. 
Ravel 's piano solo requires a different tonal sound than does Chopin...
You mentioned Mozart.
Mozart for me requires the utmost care in performance and instrumental sound..
Now here 's a Q. Take Bruno Walter's Columbia, last 6 syms. Did Mozart intend his sym sto have sucha big heavy projection? I think Bohm's Berlin is a tad lighter and perhaps more in line with Mozart's intent for his music. 
Is Pinnock 's sound more in line with Mozart's epoch?
Yet Walter's /Columbia is simply spectacular.


----------



## Rubens (Nov 5, 2017)

paulbest said:


> This topic wqas on my mind the other day as I was driving listening to the FM CM station here in New Orleans, there was Bach work playing,,,and the period instrucments used were pitch pefect,,,not too old fashioned sounding,,and not too modern sounding PLUS the Los Angles Chamber playser were performaing with the ideal tempo, textures, pgrasing for Bach,,,The thought occurred to me, some composers need a orch/chamber group in touch with the composers sound world.
> 
> Bach needs superior performaers, /properly toned instruments to bring out the full colors of the works. In piano solo works, the tmber and tones make all the difference in how the music projects.
> Ravel 's piano solo requires a different tonal sound than does Chopin...
> ...


You are asking a slightly different question. Do Some composers require that their music be played more in line with their intentions in order for it to be more enjoyable to the listener? Maybe. I'd say Chopin would be one.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Steinway Paino has their very own lable out now,,,featuring, what else but only their pianos in the recordings.
can 't recall the puce that was on the radio, concerto?...anyway,,,the tones/timbers were ridiculous ,,,the piano had no richness, sounded tinkerish, almost toyish.

The worst sounding piano I've ever heard.

In all my Ravel records,,,I have no picks on which piano sounds better,,,I/m guessing none are Steinway.

Back to the OP Q. Take Ravel and Debussy./

Its pretty much acceptable opinion, that Gieseking 's Ravel and Debussy has set some standards on phrasing, textures, nuances.
Any record which departs, stays from his masterful interpretations, I usally have issues with.

Like Samon Francois in Ravel, he really goes off on his own path. Whereas if you luisten to Bavouzet, you can clearly tell he has studied Gieseking carefully

Now here is a piano I absolutely love for Ravel

Bosendorfer . stunning piano, stunning performance.


----------



## Rubens (Nov 5, 2017)

Another way to phrase my question (and perhaps a more provocative way) is: which composers can survive a bland performance and which ones cannot?

Composers that can survive a bland performance: most pre-classicals composers (including baroque), Bizet, Verdi, Puccini, Offenbach, Borodin, Rachmaninoff, Prokofieff, Shostakovich, Satie, +/- Mahler

And those that cannot: Mozart, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Berlioz, Debussy, Ravel, Scriabin, R.Strauss, 2nd viennese school composers

The other big names such as Beethoven, Wagner, etc. I would put in between, so on neither list.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

I personally think it's more about specific compositions rather than composers, Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata can vary a lot depending on the performance, so is Mozart's Requiem; the two are some of my favorites regardless.


----------



## Rubens (Nov 5, 2017)

Clouds Weep Snowflakes said:


> I personally think it's more about specific compositions rather than composers, Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata can vary a lot depending on the performance, so is Mozart's Requiem; the two are some of my favorites regardless.


Good point. I was just generalizing because it seems that composers fit that description more of than others. I'm just trying to pinpoint what are the features of a piece that makes it less dependent on the quality of the performance? Why does the Moonlight Sonata sound good even when played blandly, whereas another equally valuable piano sonata such as the Appassionata doesn't?

For examples of bland renditions of these two sonatas, try Brendel from his second cycle. Some of his least inspired performances in that cycle IMHO, yet the Moonlight is still listenable.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

Rubens said:


> Good point. I was just generalizing because it seems that composers fit that description more of than others. I'm just trying to pinpoint what are the features of a piece that makes it less dependent on the quality of the performance? Why does the Moonlight Sonata sound good even when played blandly, whereas another equally valuable piano sonata such as the Appassionata doesn't?
> 
> For examples of bland renditions of these two sonatas, try Brendel from his second cycle. Some of his least inspired performances in that cycle IMHO, yet the Moonlight is still listenable.


Yes, Classical music requires talent; what about speed? How important is how fast one plays?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Rubens said:


> You are asking a slightly different question. Do Some composers require that their music be played more in line with their intentions in order for it to be more enjoyable to the listener? Maybe. I'd say Chopin would be one.


Yet with Chopin's canvas style , offering some allowances/variances, , there might be at least 3 or 4 of the countless records, which are *required in your collection*…Many works one can not usually find more than say 2 *best* performances,,,,,all other recordings have *issues*.

I just started a topic which deals with works which have only 1 required record, as it is definitive,,,and with perhaps 1 runner-up or even a 2nd runner up. ,,but no need to look any further.

Seems to me in Chopin, things are not so thin lined, tightly structured. ,,,Not like say in Debussy, where one *slip-up*,,and the artist is *done*. 
Or am I wrong here,,,as I do not know Chopin very well. I have never made a critical compare with his music/recordings.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

paulbest said:


> Steinway Paino has their very own lable out now,,,featuring, what else but only their pianos in the recordings.
> can 't recall the puce that was on the radio, concerto?...anyway,,,the tones/timbers were ridiculous ,,,the piano had no richness, sounded tinkerish, almost toyish.
> 
> The worst sounding piano I've ever heard.
> ...


I know you are fond of Jean-Efflam Bavouzet's recordings of Ravel. He plays on a 1901 Steinway for those recordings, I believe. Steinway may have fallen off a bit since then, but I wouldn't say that on the whole (as a brand) their pianos are lacking in character, per se. There's good ones and bad ones.

I'd like to agree with Paul's assertion of Ravel and Debussy as being quite hard to get right. Outside of these two, Scriabin is a big one for me. You either get it right (no small feat) or you completely miss the point. I can get behind putting Mozart in this category too, especially his solo piano music.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Rubens said:


> Another way to phrase my question (and perhaps a more provocative way) is: which composers can survive a bland performance and which ones cannot?


No composer can survive a bland performance. The performers have to somehow find their way into the aliveness of the music and capture something that sounds authentic and characteristic of the composer within the context of what he or she is trying to say, though there will of course be a difference of opinion in how a composer should be interpreted. But no one can survive a truly bland performance. None.

Performance indifference or lack of character can be detected in any composer, but the matter of degree can certainly vary. Some composers may be easier to get right because they are so much a part of the collective unconscious, or conscious, that they can be more readily understood and more easily interpreted. But it's not the same with composers who are not necessarily as easy to understand, such as the sensuality and mysticism in Scriabin's music, and perhaps that's what you mean.

After Scriabin died, Rachmaninoff performed his music in tribute and was heavily criticized for getting it completely wrong: he played it way too heavy, practical and earthbound with a lack of ecstatic spirituality that seems to soar into the air. It just doesn't work that way to play Scriabin like Rachmaninoff. But Horowitz got it right even when most of the other Russian pianists got it wrong. There has to be a sense of passion or ecstasy, especially in Scriabin's later works. Not everyone understands that, so there's less leeway in how he's interpreted to sound authentically and idiomatically right.

*Bland*: _not highly flavored; mild; tasteless; lacking in special interest, liveliness, individuality, etc.; insipid; dull_


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> I know you are fond of Jean-Efflam Bavouzet's recordings of Ravel. He plays on a 1901 Steinway for those recordings, I believe. Steinway may have fallen off a bit since then, but I wouldn't say that on the whole (as a brand) their pianos are lacking in character, per se. There's good ones and bad ones.
> 
> I'd like to agree with Paul's assertion of Ravel and Debussy as being quite hard to get right. Outside of these two, Scriabin is a big one for me. You either get it right (no small feat) or you completely miss the point. I can get behind putting Mozart in this category too, especially his solo piano music.


Mozart is tough to get right,,,which is why ,,not only in the PC's, at least the last 7 PC's,,but her complete Mozart, Uchida has best overall balance in every department.

I was not aware Bavouzet played a Steinway,,,,,did you say 1901? Was that mentioned in the notes? Think about the wood ageing 100 yrs, which may have given depth, character to the piano sound in the PC recording. 
Thanks for that info.
I wonder how old the Bosendofer is in Katia's YT vid. That one also may have some age.


----------



## Rubens (Nov 5, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> But no one can survive a truly bland performance. None.


Disagree. For example, I find that many of Bach's pieces can survive as long as all the notes are played, with no dynamic changes, no phrasing, no rubato. Their beauty still comes through in my opinion. On the other hand, Mozart would be unlistenable if played like that.



Larkenfield said:


> Some composers may be easier to get right because they are so much a part of the collective unconscious, or conscious, that they can be more readily understood and more easily interpreted. But it's not the same with composers who are not necessarily as easy to understand, such as the sensuality and mysticism in Scriabin's music, and perhaps that's what you mean.


Agree


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Yeah like take Haydn , just any old performance will do just fine,,,not a dud in the entire catalogue,,all are either exceptional to excellent, no average performances. Its just the way his music goes,,,Now Beethoven,,,nearly all 200 + available recordings have their merits,,,some may be better but all do a good job. 
Mozart,,as I say,,,I 've found 2 ~~10 stars records~~~ of the 50 available , and feel no need to bother with any others. , Only a 9.5 or 10 will do for Mozart.

In Ravel piano solo,,I have my preferences,,,but most (NOT all), most only) will stay on my shelf as *different approaches*. This is due the extreme difficulity of his solo piano,,,one can never be a hard line critic in Ravel,,,then again you need some standards in Ravel,,,that standard is represented by Gieseking,,,veer to far off his beaten paths,,,most likely I'll reject it.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

Did anybody mention Tchaikovsky in this thread? Those big tunes appear unbearably unlistenable (vulgar, even) in lesser hands. Then give the symphonies and tone poems to people like Mravinsky, Ancerl, or Markevich, the ballet music to Rodzinsky, Monteux, the piano music to Richter, Argerich, etc and big music appears. I’ve no doubt forgot many performers but you can be certain that the hordes of the lesser gifted are much bigger.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I am very disappointed in most Scriabin and Scarlatti recordings. I can scarcely recognize them.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Scarlatti is difficult, just visited a YT reference pianist, and I can see there are issues at getting to the poetics of the music,,,
But as for Scriabin , I clicked on a pianist who I felt could be trsuted with the music,,and I think you may like this Pletnev/ live recording/England/1996.

Listen to Prelude 2. 
What is there NOT to love about his performance???

Off the charts...but then I've only heard this performance , so I can 't really judge. 
But to my ears, this is a stunning performance,,,Pity I am not interested in Scriabin. But if it came down to choosing betwixt Chopin and Scriabin,,,,would be the latter as my easy choice.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

^This is actually better than I expected, but still... I don't know if it's really Scriabin to me, or not quite. Excellent pianism for sure, and he comes closer to the mark than, say, Piers Lane with his Etudes-near perfect playing, but yet it's just not Scriabin. Scriabin played badly comes off as just another boring late Romantic composer, but, as we who know better can assure you, that is not the case at all. I actually think if you heard the right recording, Paul, you might be more interested in his music. I hear parallels with Ravel and Debussy, both of whom were hugely influenced by the Russian school of Romantic music (if not Scriabin himself-I don't know about that), a difference being that Scriabin inhabits a much darker and more introspective sound world.

I highly recommend the following CDs if you ever come across them:

























I have yet to hear a pianist who really gets it right other than Sofronitsky (the master-he is to Scriabin what Gieseking is to Debussy), Horowitz (who once played for Scriabin as a child, with approval), and Richter. Each has his own approach-Sofronitsky more fiery, passionate, and borderline psychotic, Horowitz more cool and restrained, Richter otherworldly, meditative and transcendental-but each works. If you want some idea of what I'm talking about, listen to each of them play "Vers la flamme", op.72, a later piano work.

If you're interested in more modern sound, the only one I've found who comes close to the understanding demonstrated by the old Russian masters is Vladimir Ashkenazy. I really like his complete Scriabin sonatas on Decca. But there are many I still have yet to hear. I've heard Maria Lettberg is supposed to be a really good currently active Scriabin player.

Rant over. Give these pianists (and Scriabin in general) a shot :cheers:


----------



## Rubens (Nov 5, 2017)

"Difficult to make it sound right" is a good colloquial way to phrase the topic of this thread.
And yes, Scriabin is among the most difficult to make it sound right. Schumann as well.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Rubens said:


> "Difficult to make it sound right" is a good colloquial way to phrase the topic of this thread.
> And yes, Scriabin is among the most difficult to make it sound right. Schumann as well.


 Scriabin is , very tricky,,,,you can watch Ashkenazy live in Japan, struggling over how to proceed with each passing series of notes...all the notes , ,,from both hands,,have to blend, yet holda balance and,,,etc etc,,fall just in place,,,tempos, pauses, reentry,,,, etcs,,,just horrific for any pianist.
~~~and then along comes ravel,,and adds EVEN MORE dexterity issues~~~~

What do you think about Pletnev in Prelude 2, in the YT vid above,,,compared to Ashkenazy's Prelude 2(which I can not find on YT)…
Do you think that , though Pletnev has incredible skills, his tempos may be too slow,medatative for that piece,,,,or is it just one possible way of interpreting and allows a valid characterization of the piece. 
IOW how is the tempo based on other performances? ,


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

For me, the Handel Keyboard Suites must be played quickly, and with great facility, as in Richter. The music is so predictable and in-the-box harmonically that they must be done with flash to keep my interest. I think the same thing happened when Glenn Gould played the Goldberg Variations in this facile manner.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Rubens said:


> By "performance-sensitiveness",.
> 
> Btw, I don't think this has anything to do with the composer's "greatness".


Actually there is a connection. 
I heard Ravel's ,,well what was ~~suppose~~~ to be Rapsodie Espanol~~~ on the FM CM station here in New Orleans,,,the daily playlist failed to state who the conductor,,,so I called the station,,,they said would get back with me via email,never did,,,I have no idea who made the ~~~attempt~~~ in the Rapsodie ,,,if it was a avg conductor/orch,,,I have no qulams,,but ifa major conductor/major orch,,,now I have to criticize.

They ~~~zapped~~~ away some of the greatness about the work...made it a ~~~ sham~~~ so yes, at timesa conductor/orch,,,can reduce the greatness of a work.....I am not at all referring to to this idea of ~~~perfection~~~,,not at all.
Yet there are standards, which should be known and observed by any modern performance.

Forgiveness is allowed based on the quality/reputation of the orch.

Take this hypothetical, if Salonen made a Pettersson sym record with the Los Angeles,,,~~I would~ expect ,,stunning results(9/10 understandable,,,YET ,,,8/10 not acceptable)...Anything less, would be ~unforgivable.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I posted earlier that works that I know really well need to be played exceptionally well to engage my enthusiasm. But I think also that I have been stuck on certain performances or performers with some composers who I don't know that well. For a long time the only Shostakovich orchestral music that really got to me was from one of the big three Soviet conductors (Mravinsky, Rozhdestvensky, Svetlanov, Kondrashin) but these days I am more open to less Russian approaches. The same is also true, only more so, for Tchaikovsky.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Interesting that no-one has mentioned Charles Ives? Performances of his piano works are either magnificent or ghastly.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Pat Fairlea said:


> Interesting that no-one has mentioned Charles Ives? Performances of his piano works are either magnificent or ghastly.


You don't think that maybe this has something to do with the music itself?


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Works that are typically dense in texture, elusive in expression and temperament, are those that depend on a particular type of performances (or interpretations) if they'll going to appeal to the listeners (and not sound unduly rambling and discursive): the performances that strike the right balance between the compelling ideas and ones that are bland or routine, allowing for nuances to shine through. Making the ideas stand tall and speak, but with the right flow and structuralism (nothing too hurried or languorous). To weave seamlessly through the textures, but with the right intensity, projection, articulacy, and urgency. In other words, to be able to 'voice' and differentiate the ideas in the textures.

Composers whose music fit that profile include.

Bruckner
Reger
Glazunov
Medtner
Bax
Myaskovsky
Rachmaninoff
Brahms
Wagner, arguably
Messiaen


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

paulbest said:


> You don't think that maybe this has something to do with the music itself?


No paul, you disappoint me. You are not the best.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

^Ives' piano music is extremely difficult. Of course it has to do with the music itself. By nature, something like the Concord Sonata is going to be more "performance-sensitive" than, say, the Three Gymnopédies.

One example I just thought of is Anton Webern. Even more so than his comrades Berg and Schoenberg, Webern requires intimate understanding to make it sound good. Now, that doesn't mean there's only one way to play Webern, and on the contrary his music is really expressive. A good performer can really put themselves into the music. Luckily, there is no shortage (or not much... at least a few complete works recordings exist) of great Webern recordings of his these days, but I might be skeptical to attend a student performance of his String Quartet, for example.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

tdc said:


> No paul, you disappoint me. You are not the best.


You don't think the music of Ives is a bit ~~odd~~? 
To me its ~unusual~~


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

paulbest said:


> You don't think the music of Ives is a bit ~~odd~~?
> To me its ~unusual~~


I think that's putting it mildly! None the less, Ives in the hands of a performer who is prepared to dive deep into its complexity and who has the technique to carry it off can be fascinating, absorbing and, as the young people like to say, awesome!


----------

