# Another surprise: Gardiner / Bilson Mozart Piano Concerto 21 BAD



## bigshot

I am going through the Gardiner box set and I figured Mozart would be something he would do well. Boy was I wrong. No atmosphere, overly strident rhythms, a piano that sounds like a xylophone... what a mess. There are so many good recordings of this piece, what's the point of this mess. Super disappointed.


----------



## Itullian

bigshot said:


> I am going through the Gardiner box set and I figured Mozart would be something he would do well. Boy was I wrong. No atmosphere, overly strident rhythms, a piano that sounds like a xylophone... what a mess. There are so many good recordings of this piece, what's the point of this mess. Super disappointed.


I agree totally. I had that entire set and gave it away.
But that's the way I feel about most of his work.


----------



## KenOC

I pooped out on this set as well. And I'm quite a Gardiner fan!


----------



## dgee

I guess y'all are just not into historical performance practice. 

This was the set that really drew me into the Piano Concertos and back into Mozart more generally. It's a whole world of listeners out there, but where you hear "no atmosphere, overly strident rhythms, a piano that sounds like a xylophone" I hear vigorous, witty, uninhibited performances that give life to the music in a way the Uchidas and Perahias and others just don't

And that's the richness of music appreciation, I guess


----------



## bigshot

Well, it certainly doesn't linger. It marches right along like a circus band.


----------



## neoshredder

Love that set. Orchestra sounds great.


----------



## realdealblues

I'm not a huge fan of the Fortepiano to begin with, so I've never been a big fan of this set personally. 

It's interesting to hear how it may have sounded back then, but I have no doubt in my mind that if Mozart had had access to a modern Steinway, he would have been playing one instead. I see it as more of a novelty act. Interesting to experience once, but not something I want to visit everyday. 

I don't think for one moment if Mozart was alive and touring today that he would be dragging out his old Fortepiano on tour instead of a Grand Piano or a bunch of Synthesizers with Midi Controllers where he could create a bunch of crazy sounds. He'd be a total techie.


----------



## bigshot

The point of HIP is hearing the way it might have sounded back in Mozart's time. But I find it hard to believe that the depths of expression in more modern interpretation style weren't intended by Mozart. That sort of thing doesn't happen unless it's written into the music. Perhaps performances like Anda and Perrahia are closer to what Mozart heard in his head.


----------



## Vaneyes

Out of curiosity 20 years or so ago, I purchased a few "previously-enjoyed (or not)" singles. I was not and still am not a fan of this treatment for Mozart. I vaguely recall some PCs working better than others, and Bilson's instrument often being a point of frustration.


----------



## Vaneyes

bigshot said:


> The point of HIP is hearing the way it might have sounded back in Mozart's time. But I find it hard to believe that the depths of expression in more modern interpretation style weren't intended by Mozart. That sort of thing doesn't happen unless it's written into the music. Perhaps performances like Anda and Perrahia are closer to what Mozart heard in his head.


Hey, you win some, you lose some. :lol:


----------



## quack

I tend to avoid fortepiano recordings, definitely solo works the naked instrument can just sound like a faulty piano. Then again there's a fair few piano recordings where I don't like the tone of the instrument. The samples of the Bilson set do sound good though, the fortepiano fits right in with the sound of the accompaniment. Can I really spare the time on another set of the concertos when I don't feel I have digested other versions.


----------



## Mahlerian

Aren't most of your problems with HIP in general, rather than this recording? The lack of "atmosphere" you hear is probably the smaller group and the vibrato-less string playing. The piano doesn't sound at all like a xylophone...which projects better than a fortepiano anyway. Perhaps like me, the tuning of the instruments "between" the keys is bothering you as well, although you don't realize it.

Anyway, there's a place for Mozart PCs in HIP, though it's probably not in my collection. I just don't see the point of saying something is "bad" when you would never have given it a fair shot anyway.


----------



## Blancrocher

Some may find this exchange between Bilson and Charles Rosen in the NYRB interesting:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1990/nov/08/early-music-an-exchange/

Not much that most of us haven't heard before, I'm sure, but the fact that the same arguments continue to appear is interesting in itself, perhaps.

To Mahlerian: you've got a point, of course, but keep in mind that it's only the posts containing unwarranted, extravagant praise that result in my wasting my money :lol:


----------



## bigshot

Mahlerian said:


> The lack of "atmosphere" you hear is probably the smaller group and the vibrato-less string playing.


Perhaps atmosphere wasn't the best word to describe what I meant. Mozart's 21st has marked contrasts in mood from joyous to languid and everything in-between. The best versions I have are conducted to bring out those feelings from the music. Gardiner's conducting felt like an equestrian snapping the reins at regular intervals to keep the horse going. There were rhythmic accents every few bars that made maintaining anything but the feeling of marching troops impossible. It felt like he was conducting Sousa or something.

I have lots of HIP in my collection, although I don't think I have any other fortepiano (thank goodness!) I don't mind HIP. It isn't my favorite, but it's interesting. In this case, the problem wasn't the fact that it was HIP so much as that the conducting was rigid and one dimensional. That's bad in any style.


----------



## Mahlerian

bigshot said:


> I have lots of HIP in my collection, although I don't think I have any other fortepiano (thank goodness!) I don't mind HIP. It isn't my favorite, but it's interesting. In this case, the problem wasn't the fact that it was HIP so much as that the conducting was rigid and one dimensional. That's bad in any style.


Point taken. I don't care much for fortepiano or Gardiner in general either (though I like his rather divisive Symphonie Fantastique). I prefer HIP Baroque music by far, with Suzuki and Herreweghe among my favorites for Bach. I also enjoy the sound of the harpsichord as an instrument, although piano renditions of Baroque music are fine in my book as well.


----------



## bigshot

I like performers who are expressive and imaginative in the way they present the music.


----------



## KenOC

I was just listening to the K.466 C-minor concerto from Bilsen/Gardiner. The approach is vigorous and highly accented, as you might expect from Gardiner. He likes those whacking tympani! Bilsen's playing seems fine as well. I suspect the problem I have with this cycle is that the fortetpiano is just not up to competing with the orchestra. This may be a fault of the recording engineers, or maybe it simply can't be reasonably cured.

In any event, it's the polar opposite of (say) the Uchida/Tate approach. There's room for both, I think.


----------



## dgee

bigshot said:


> I like performers who are expressive and imaginative in the way they present the music.


I'm interested now to know who you do like in Mozart. It certainly wouldn't be someone from the "lovingly slow fade between chocolate box German castles/classics for relaxation" school, would it?

The Bilson Gardiner box isn't perfect but it is characterful and fun - expressive and imaginative to a wonderful degree especially if you consider some of the dirgy, vaseline on the lens Mozart that got recorded in the 80s. They are pretty old now, tho - Bob Levin's recordings are also highly articulate and expressive and the orchestral playing and mix is much better.


----------



## bigshot

I like Anda, Perahia and I'm enjoying Han in the Brilliant Box too. Those have a million times more expression and variety of moods than Bilson. But I really don't think it's Bilson's fault. Primarily, it's Gardiner's for goosing the rhythm every four bars or so. The piano doesn't help either.


----------



## Bradius

I listened to it recently and thought it was fine. But then, I do like HIP and fortepiano.


----------



## dgee

Those Anda ones really are pretty good - he manages to make them lively and lovely and the orchestra is quite unslushy. A good reminder. I was new to the Han set but had a short listen today and they seemed quite close to the sort of Mozart I don't like - pretty, "stately" but lacking interest. Sounds like a relaxation tape. I was thinking that with modern instrument (louder and more sustaining) slow movements tend to do better than the fast 

The Bilson/Gardiner recordings really are outliers in their bustling approach. Along with Levin, Ronald Brautigam and Andreas Staier have made some really wonderful recordings on the fortepiano that I think are objectively better. Brautigam's 22 in particualr was a good find for me a lot of the other recordings I've heard really haven't quite fulfilled the promise of the music


----------



## DavidA

I must confess I don't like the sound of the fortepiano very much apart from in opera as in Jacobs recordings. It certainly cannot compare in the concertos to the likes of Perahia or Brendel, etc.. In addition, we simply don't know how Mozart played them. What was his style? However much HI research we do, we have to admit we simply don't know!


----------



## bigshot

I don't think it matters at all how Mozart played them. What matters is how the recording in front of us sounds. I want performances that are alive, not ones that are pickled in historical formaldehyde.


----------



## Adamus

Bradius said:


> I listened to it recently and thought it was fine. But then, I do like HIP and fortepiano.


HIP? what's the meaning of it?


----------



## jegreenwood

Adamus said:


> HIP? what's the meaning of it?


Historically Informed Performance.

I bought the Gardiner/Bilson cycle ages ago. On any number of occasions I thought of getting rid of it, because the fortepiano was overwhelmed by the orchestra. Then, a couple of years ago, I got some improved DACs (nothing too fancy from Teac). Listening to the concertos through that DAC, the fortepiano did not so much increase in volume but became better defined, allowing it to stand out from the orchestra.

I also have Anda and Perahia, but the Bilson makes for a nice contrast. And his recordings of the two Mozart piano quartets has been a favorite for years.


----------



## Bulldog

I like both HIP and modern instrument recordings of Mozart's piano concertos. So it's yes for Bilson, Anda, Perahia and Uchida.


----------



## Pugg

Anda, Barenboim ( first recording) Perahia, Uchida, Zacharias, Brendel for starters.


----------



## sbmonty

Gardiner, Bilson were actually the first choice on this past weeks BBC Building A Library program for Piano Concerto No. 21.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

True, but it wouldn't be the first perverse recommendation that programme's come up with in more recent times. When I first began listening to it decades ago reviewers would try and come up with a recommendation which would appeal to the greatest number of listeners, whereas nowadays their choices appear to be more along the lines of "This is my personal fave - take it or leave it". There's a place for that of course (it can make for a very entertaining programme) but for my money that place is not in the "Building a Library" slot on the BBC.


----------



## Pugg

Animal the Drummer said:


> True, but it wouldn't be the first perverse recommendation that programme's come up with in more recent times. When I first began listening to it decades ago reviewers would try and come up with a recommendation which would appeal to the greatest number of listeners, whereas nowadays their choices appear to be more along the lines of "This is my personal fave - take it or leave it". There's a place for that of course (it can make for a very entertaining programme) but for my money that place is not in the "Building a Library" slot on the BBC.


I am going to add + 1 for this.


----------



## Mandryka

Animal the Drummer said:


> True, but it wouldn't be the first perverse recommendation that programme's come up with in more recent times. When I first began listening to it decades ago reviewers would try and come up with a recommendation which would appeal to the greatest number of listeners, whereas nowadays their choices appear to be more along the lines of "This is my personal fave - take it or leave it". There's a place for that of course (it can make for a very entertaining programme) but for my money that place is not in the "Building a Library" slot on the BBC.


How can the journalists who do these programmes know what would appeal to the greatest number of listeners?

What other perverse recommendations have they come up with?


----------



## Animal the Drummer

First question: by not nominating as first choice recordings which might be expected to appeal to a minority of general listeners whether because of a heavily personal interpretation, performance practices which might be less likely to appeal to non-specialist listeners (e.g.the use of a fortepiano instead of a modern piano) or both (as per some of Roger Norrington's recordings for example). There's a place for those and for programmes in which reviewers recommend them but not, IMHO, when a fair number of listeners to the programme will be looking for recordings they can buy with confidence that they'll be able to live with them. 

As an example of an unreliable recommendation, earlier this year the programme recommended a chamber orchestra version of Tchaikovsky's "Pathetique". I can see how that might be of interest, but I wouldn't recommend a newbie to start with it as what may well be their only recording, at least initially.


----------



## bigshot

There is an official term designated by reviewers to describe stuff that most listeners wouldn't be interested in... "curate's egg".


----------



## Triplets

Mandryka said:


> How can the journalists who do these programmes know what would appeal to the greatest number of listeners?
> 
> What other perverse recommendations have they come up with?


Sales figures, perhaps?


----------



## Mandryka

Animal the Drummer said:


> First question: by not nominating as first choice recordings which might be expected to appeal to a minority of general listeners whether because of a heavily personal interpretation, performance practices which might be less likely to appeal to non-specialist listeners (e.g.the use of a fortepiano instead of a modern piano) or both (as per some of Roger Norrington's recordings for example). There's a place for those and for programmes in which reviewers recommend them but not, IMHO, when a fair number of listeners to the programme will be looking for recordings they can buy with confidence that they'll be able to live with them.
> 
> As an example of an unreliable recommendation, earlier this year the programme recommended a chamber orchestra version of Tchaikovsky's "Pathetique". I can see how that might be of interest, but I wouldn't recommend a newbie to start with it as what may well be their only recording, at least initially.


But what about where the fortepiano performance is just way superior to the ones on modern piano? Then you should say that the best is the f/p one, but if you want one on modern piano there are some nice things in XYZ. Surely. Similarly with harpsichord.


----------



## pcnog11

When this set came out in the early 1990's, it was one of the best recorded set of the time. I think Archiv did an excellent job in the recording. I think both Gardiner and Bilson were experimenting with the fortepiano approach to Mozart. It does not seemed that their experiment is successful.


----------



## Mandryka

pcnog11 said:


> I think both Gardiner and Bilson were experimenting with the fortepiano approach to Mozart. It does not seemed that their experiment is successful.


-------------

Why not?


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Mandryka said:


> But what about where the fortepiano performance is just way superior to the ones on modern piano? Then you should say that the best is the f/p one, but if you want one on modern piano there are some nice things in XYZ. Surely. Similarly with harpsichord.


Wouldn't disagree, but that isn't what the reviewer did in this case (I don't listen to every programme, but I did to this one as the piece is a particular favourite of mine).


----------



## bigshot

Mandryka said:


> Why not?


Because it doesn't come close to putting across the potential of the music they're playing. It's like Beethoven's 9th played on a Kazoo.


----------



## Bill H.

I don't have all the recordings in this series, but I would tend to agree that the long, sustained lines in the slow movement of #21 can be a challenge for ANY piano, but especially for a fortepiano's smaller resonating structure. Based on my limited experience in a concert hall with a live fortepiano performance with (period) orchestra, the recording probably had the instrument pretty closely miked, too. 

You can get a sense of the way the instrument started to change in the following years by listening to Hogwood's set of the Beethoven Concertos with Levin(?) as the pianist. They start out with Nos. 1 & 2 using a fortepiano that probably wasn't much different than the Walther copy used by Gardiner/Bilson, and then 'switch up' to bigger, more sustaining keyboard models that reflect the build technology at the time that each of the succeeding Concertos were written. By the time they get to the Emperor, the instrument used sounds much more like a modern piano, though by no means would one mistake it for a 9ft Steinway Concert Grand.


----------



## pcnog11

Mandryka said:


> -------------
> 
> Why not?


Isn't the answer obvious?


----------

