# Mini Blind Comparison: Mozart's Piano Concerto no. 21, Andante



## Guest (Sep 14, 2018)

Just a single movement, total listening time is around half an hour (not too long, I hope!) for 5 different recordings.

There's no obligation to listen to them all or even rank them, the important thing is to tell us what you think of these recordings and what you like or don't like about the ones you listened to. This isn't a game and there are no 'winners' but it would be interesting to see if there is (or isn't) a consensus on what the preferred recording is out of this small selection. I tried to mix some very well known recordings with some more obscure ones. You're welcome to guess who they are but don't reveal the musicians if you know exactly. I won't reveal any details about the musicians until after we've discussed the recordings. 

Without further ado, here's a dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3098no3lr3u90z9/AAARKbIj204EIappBzC1C2U6a?dl=0

Happy listening! :tiphat:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Nos. 1 and 2 are the slow versions, and I find no. 2 to be a little more expressive in the strings; no. 1 has the best recorded sound of the 5 versions.

No. 4 has a celebratory element that I don't really find in the other versions.

Overall, I'd go with no. 4 first and no. 2 second. The other three are fine interpretations.

I'm very easy to please when it comes to Mozart.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Whoa, number three sounds about a half-step flat! Maybe from an LP turntable  that’s not calibrated?


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> Whoa, number three sounds about a half-step flat! Maybe from LP?


Probably should have warned that in some of these performances the musicians tune to a different frequency.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

shirime said:


> Probably should have warned that in some of these performances the musicians tune to a different frequency.


That raises a question: How far from A=440 can a modern piano be tuned?


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2018)

KenOC said:


> That raises a question: How far from A=440 can a modern piano be tuned?


You'd have to ask a piano tuner or a string manufacturer. Also, be careful of the word 'modern' because this ain't a modern piano!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Playing them through once I had these thoughts:

1. Very smooth and fairly slow. Indulgent or loving – take your pick. But it sounds like a shampoo ad to me. And does it really go anywhere? I didn't like it at all.
2. Similar speed to 1 but so much more is found in the music. The piano playing has a sense of style as well as depth and seems to go somewhere. A very good but example of the pre-HIP (or perhaps merely non-HIP) approach.
3. Faster than 1 and 2 but the into sounds a little sentimental to me. The piano (a forte piano I assume) is fairly quiet - which is okay - but the playing sounds a bit limp to me. I didn't much like this.
4. Very slow with a fairly delicate and sentimental (neither is good in this as far as I'm concerned) sounding intro. The piano playing is a lot more interesting with lots of slightly unusual (improvisatory?) phrasing - but not much of it goes with the orchestral approach or, indeed, with what we now expect from Mozart). From the sound this is an old recording: I guess a well known pianist - but not one known for "sobriety" - back in the day.
5. The intro is a little unassuming but has flow which seems to set it up well to make all the points that need to be made. The piano - a forte piano, I think - is stylish and interesting: the phrasing and improvisation sound right to me. And it goes somewhere, doing everything well and yet in a slightly unassuming way. I like it: it is almost a model for how to play this movement, I think.

I found ranking these easy: 5 was my favourite; then 2; then (but only as a curiosity - unless the outer movements are quite something) 4, then 3 and finally 1.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

I immediately identified #1 (CAFGVP) which is the only one I own of the presented here. Have not heard all the others in detail yet but found #4 quite interesting for the liberties the piano player is taking here (rubato and ornamentation). I'll keep listening to these later today.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

Maybe it's the fact that 99% of my listening has been and continues to be analog. Not uncommonly with digital, I hear distinct shortcomings regarding separation of instruments and natural perspective. Too many sounds that are frequently heard in the background tend to be pushed forward, thereby truncating a sense of dimensionality. They become overly prominent,often competing for attention with the presentation of the instruments and voices in the foreground. The listening experience becomes annoying rather than enjoyable and relaxing. There are some similar examples of compression in side to side perspective as well. 

The interpretation in recording #1 sounds a bit too precious and labored at times, almost contrived to my ears. Some instrumental accents accompanying or immediately following the piano sound overly emphatic, and the piano itself sounds too thin.

Recording #2: Both the music and the interpretation sound more natural and easy flowing. All seems to be more of one piece, and freer of the relatively analytic detail I hear in some of the other performances.

In varying degrees, recordings 3,4 and 5 reflect some of the issues touched on in my initial paragraph. In sample #5, some wind and string passages also occasionally sound tonally "off" to me (maybe a bit "sour" for lack of a better description?), though I find the performance to be a pretty decent one.


----------



## hustlefan (Apr 29, 2016)

I like #5 the best and #4 is the worst.

Some comments:

1 - slow, very romantic, string-heavy, no classical era awareness
pianist is also heavy and romantic
pianist is too prominent, muting of strings should be more obvious
winds could be more prominent
some ornamentation by pianist but done dutifully not stylishly
coda theme nicely played rank=4

2 - mono sound, muted strings are strident
pianist is stylish but still based in romanticism
pianist is too prominent, should be chamber music with full and equal participation by winds rank=2

3 - fast, prosaic
fortepiano used instead of piano
winds well forward, trills begin on upper note, some ornamention nicely applied
lower winds too loud rank=3

4 - mono sound, moderate tempo, strings are obviously muted
pianist uses rubato too much in opening theme, is not together with strings
eccentric pianist is too prominent, draws too much attention to himself by playing not in time with too many notes not written by composer and grunting
rank=5

5 - fast but expressive
winds well forward, ornamentation constantly used by fortepianist
fortepianist plays expressively with nice inflections rank=1


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2018)

Interestingly, there's written evidence of how Mozart played slow movements such as this one on the piano. One of the most notable elements of his playing style that was commented on by people who saw him play was his extraordinary control of rubato; his left hand played strictly in time whilst the right hand flowed freely, rhythmically independent from his left hand, rarely playing 'in time' or 'on the beat'. It was something very difficult to achieve as convincingly as Mozart. 

I don't know if the pianist in number 4 was aware that Mozart played in that way, but he was harshly criticised for it. I think it predates the time when HIP recordings started to market themselves as mainstream. I am yet to find a HIP recording of Mozart that actually implements rubato the way it was described in the 18th century. (on another note, I am yet to find HIP recordings of Mozart that use vibrato in an orchestral context as the basic, continuous timbre as was described by Leopold Mozart and others.......I understand that's not so possible on the piano but there's an orchestra here as well...........)

I also love numbers 2 and 3, number 3 for the improvised embellishments which made the fortepiano more audible but also added some very very nice new features to the melodic line. Number 5 is also nice, and I think the phrasing is a little better, but a bit more 'standard' than the others. Number 1 is my least favourite of the five, and aside from the embellishments here and there I think it's just awfully dull.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ I do find what you say about performing practice in the Classical era interesting. It isn't that I feel strongly that performing practice must be authentic but it does go some way towards explaining to me why so many HIP Mozart performances don't work so well. And, I do think that new fashions in practice can give rise to new inspirations to some performers - so it is good to know what might be around the corner.


----------



## hustlefan (Apr 29, 2016)

Methinks the ultra-Romantic #1 and the proto-HIP #4 pianist is one and the same at different points in his career. Amazing! Incredible! Could it be true?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"Mini Blind Comparison"? I feel like I've stumbled into a Home Depot!


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2018)

hustlefan said:


> Methinks the ultra-Romantic #1 and the proto-HIP #4 pianist is one and the same at different points in his career. Amazing! Incredible! Could it be true?


What is audible in the interpretations that made you come to that conclusion?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

KenOC said:


> "Mini Blind Comparison"? I feel like I've stumbled into a Home Depot!


Because ..........?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Didn't like 1 (ponderous), 3 (mechanical, dry, piano gets buried) or 4 (Jeeezus! What is wrong with this player? I imagine this pianist did know about Mozart's rubato style as shirime describes, but had no idea how to convincingly execute it.)

5 — I liked best. Tasteful ornamentation on repeated phrases. Good sense of overall shape.

2 — A sense of urgency. Not bad.


----------



## hustlefan (Apr 29, 2016)

shirime said:


> What is audible in the interpretations that made you come to that conclusion?


It was a process of matching the timings of your post to the recordings I have. I listened to the recordings that had the same timing to see if any matched your post. The interpretations are so different from each other that I would never have guessed they were the same pianist.


----------



## hustlefan (Apr 29, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> Because ..........?


Mini blinds are a household item in the USA sold at Home Depot.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I love this mvt very much. I'm very picky about it, the piano has to be just right, smooth, yet dynamic. I'm listening to 1 now, it is a little slow, but I think it's expressive and well executed.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

hustlefan said:


> Mini blinds are a household item in the USA sold at Home Depot.


Haha - silly of me not to get it!


----------



## Euler (Dec 3, 2017)

This was fun, I most enjoyed 2, 3 and 5.
The orchestra in #1 is technically superb but rather bloodless, the piano is penetrating without conveying much. A saunter down the middle of the road.
#2 is a different beast. Take the lovely modulation to the flat-mediant at the end of the second section--here a stirring poignancy shames the phoned-in detachment of #1. Old-skool but decent.
#3 sounds a bit spiritless after #2. But it comes to life around the tutti at m. 55, with those sighing woodwinds and surging strings carrying real pathos. The fortepiano has well-integrated ornaments from start to finish. Pointless trivia: I've played gamba under this conductor (an Englishman with a German surname).
#4 has nice vocals; shame about the rest of it. All the poise of drunken sailors on shore leave.
#5 is another nice fortepiano version--the soloist more present than in #3 despite fewer ornaments. Most of it is well phrased, though the woodwinds are subdued and the violin sforzandos lack bite. I'm intrigued to know who this is so I can listen to the full piece.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Euler said:


> This was fun, I most enjoyed 2, 3 and 5.
> The orchestra in #1 is technically superb but rather bloodless, the piano is penetrating without conveying much. A saunter down the middle of the road.
> #2 is a different beast. Take the lovely modulation to the flat-mediant at the end of the second section--here a stirring poignancy shames the phoned-in detachment of #1. Old-skool but decent.
> #3 sounds a bit spiritless after #2. But it comes to life around the tutti at m. 55, with those sighing woodwinds and surging strings carrying real pathos. The fortepiano has well-integrated ornaments from start to finish. Pointless trivia: I've played gamba under this conductor (an Englishman with a German surname).
> ...


Yeah, like where is the reveal? We all want to know.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2018)

Should I start revealing the recordings today?

Actually, I may as well.

This is number 3.
Pianist: Linda Nicholson
Orchestra: Capella Coloniensis
Conductor: Nicholas Kraemer










I think Euler knew this one!


----------



## hustlefan (Apr 29, 2016)

I listened again and #1 is not the same pianist as #4. I think #4 is Austrian and #5 is Dutch and leave it at that.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2018)

hustlefan said:


> I listened again and #1 is not the same pianist as #4. I think #4 is Austrian and #5 is Dutch and leave it at that.


Very interesting..........do you have any guesses for the pianists in each of those? I'll reveal them soon.....


----------



## hustlefan (Apr 29, 2016)

shirime said:


> Very interesting..........do you have any guesses for the pianists in each of those? I'll reveal them soon.....


I think #4 is Friedrich Gulda/Hans Swarowsky and #5 is Bart van Oort


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

hustlefan said:


> I listened again and #1 is not the same pianist as #4. I think #4 is Austrian ...


I think that's partially correct. I think they are the same pianist (#1 and #4). Yes, Austrian. 

.....


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

hustlefan said:


> I think #4 is Friedrich Gulda/Hans Swarowsky and #5 is Bart van Oort


I think you nailed it.


----------



## hustlefan (Apr 29, 2016)

jdec said:


> I think that's partially correct. I think they are the same pianist (#1 and #4). Yes, Austrian.
> 
> .....


Right, Shazam verified that my original hunch was correct. #1 is Gulda/Abbado


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2018)

Congrats to those who got it correct.

Number 5:










Number 4:










Number 1:










Did anyone get number 2?


----------



## hustlefan (Apr 29, 2016)

Number 2: Maria Tipo/Jonel Perlea on Vox

The Shazam music-recognition app puts the whole concept of a blind comparison in jeopardy because it makes it too easy to find out the performers. I guess you have to use the honor system.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2018)

Why would anyone want to use shazam for it?


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2018)

No. 2


----------



## hustlefan (Apr 29, 2016)

shirime said:


> Why would anyone want to use shazam for it?


Because Shazam not only identifies which piece is played, it identifies the performers as well.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2018)

hustlefan said:


> Because Shazam not only identifies which piece is played, it identifies the performers as well.


Yes, but why would someone use it in a _blind_ comparison?


----------



## hustlefan (Apr 29, 2016)

shirime said:


> Yes, but why would someone use it in a _blind_ comparison?


If there is a way to identify the performers, then it is not a blind comparison.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hustlefan said:


> If there is a way to identify the performers, then it is not a blind comparison.


Put another way, it's a blind comparison unless someone cheats.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2018)

hustlefan said:


> If there is a way to identify the performers, then it is not a blind comparison.


I had planned to do some more of these, but I don't think I will any more.


----------



## chesapeake bay (Aug 3, 2015)

shirime said:


> I had planned to do some more of these, but I don't think I will any more.


Aww don't let spoil sports ruin our fun, I'm sure most people who took this test didn't want to know the performers before choosing and/or commenting. Here were my thoughts (didn't even look past the first post before listening lest there was some spoiler or comment that would influence me)

1 excellent recorded sound both piano and orchestra but sooo slow
2 less good than 1 and also sooo slow
3 clearly HIP with the tuning and I like the tempo and orchestra but the forte paino was just a little lost
4 i wrote "blech"
5 nice HIP performance with good forte piano sound and playing

I checked on my favorite out of curiosity as I usually prefer piano though I like HIP tempo's and sure enough Kurt Masur, Annerose Schmidt and the Dresden Philharmonie play it at 6:16.

Ready for the next one!!!


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2018)

For those who are willing to participate without cheating (although I can't really police that), what piece are you interested in next? I'll post another one on Friday. I would like to, at some stage, post all the recordings of the first movement of Le Marteau sans maître as a comparison........

Other options I might do at some stage: A guitar etude by Villa-Lobos, a short movement of a string quartet by Mozart or Haydn, a Bach prelude and fugue, a piano piece by Schoenberg, the last movement of Mozart's 35th symphony..... what do you think? Do you have any suggestions?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Bach - Prelude and Fugue in E flat major, BWV 552 "St. Anne"


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> Bach - Prelude and Fugue in E flat major, BWV 552 "St. Anne"


I love this one, I might do it if others are interested too.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Dont stop, Shrime. because of a few cheats. Btw, Shazam and Soundhound aren't always 100% accurate if you do cheat. They might spot some pieces very easily but with others (especially those with more congested orchestral sections) they struggle . Out of interest, I tried it out on the Wagner thread (just now) and Soundhound only got one right. No point in cheating anyway (unless you are that way inclined). Keep up the good work. I may even do a blind comparison of my own very soon (oh no, groan the TC members!)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I find them fun and interesting. I don't see it as a competition - are we meant to?? - and cheating would be like cheating in a game of patience.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

shirime said:


> I had planned to do some more of these, but I don't think I will any more.


Don't stop!

I didn't even think about trying to identify the performers. The fun for me was evaluating the performances and hearing others' critiques. Doing it blind eliminates the influence of performers' reputations on the outcome, which makes the results interesting.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2018)

Thanks for the positive feedback 

Also, some suggestions on what piece to do next would be nice as well! Ultimately, I'll make the final decision based on how well I know the respective work and the variety of interpretations there are available to choose from.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

I don’t have the knowledge to identify performances and I don’t cheat!

I don’t actually like this concerto (Overuse by the ‘Elvira Madigan’ crowd) but I’ll put them in order:

4 is easily the favourite - much more ‘oomph’
Then 3 & 2
5 is ok
1 is desperately slow and sleep-inducing

Please do some more, no point in cheating


----------



## chesapeake bay (Aug 3, 2015)

shirime said:


> Other options I might do at some stage: A guitar etude by Villa-Lobos, a short movement of a string quartet by Mozart or Haydn, a Bach prelude and fugue, a piano piece by Schoenberg, the last movement of Mozart's 35th symphony..... what do you think? Do you have any suggestions?


Those all sound good to me. I'd suggest Chopin Ballade no 4


----------

