Bilson/Gardiner's Mozart's Piano Concertos and Recording Quality

[Pretorious]

This is a topic that has been on my mind for a long, long time. Too long, in fact. Hopefully, you kind people of this forum will finally put an end to my equivocation about this recording.

The performances by both Malcolm Bilson and John Eliot Gardiner are superb; of that there is no question. There is, however, something that has always kept me from truly enjoying this set. And that is the recorded sound of the fortepiano used by Bilson throughout. Now, I am an enormous fan of period instrument and HIP performances, so it is not the sound of the fortepiano per se; it is simply the sound of the fortepiano on this specific recording. It sounds almost nothing like any other fortepiano I have heard in recordings.

Is it, in actuality, as bad as my mind has made it out to be? Is it instead a very good recording and representation of the instrument and I am obsessing over nothing? I have vacillated so many times for so many years that I can no longer be objective about it. I am well aware that DG's sound quality has long been suspect, often times using too many microphones or spot mics in the mix. But is that a factor here? Aside from the piano, the orchestral part sounds quite good and realistic even compared with more contemporary recordings.

I will feel much enlightened by everyone of your opinions, if only to hear a different one than my own.

Here is an example movement from the album that can be listened to for analysis:

 

[Mike-48]

Hi @Pretorious - Tonight, I listened to most of Mvmt 1 of K. 595 in that set, via Qobuz on my usual system. To me, the fortepiano seems rather pingy in the upper octaves, which gives it a bit of a toy-like quality. It is not the worst recorded fortepiano I have heard, by a long shot, but certainly not a sound that I relish. I don't think it's the recording, just the particular instrument.

Recording a large set of piano concerti using only one instrument is an error in judgement, IMO. Because fortepianos sound so different from one another, it is more interesting to have more than one of them in a set.

I also think the recording is bass-shy, like many older classical recordings. After assessing the sound, I turned up the bass control and the subwoofer level by 0.5 to 1.5 dB and enjoyed the recording more.

Hope that's helpful! And thank you -- I knew about this set but had never have listened to any of it.

 

[Pretorious]

Hi @Mike-48 thanks for giving this a listen; I had forgotten I made this post.

I kept listening to this set and came to the same conclusion: that it was just the sound of the instrument, not the recording. Bilson has a recording of Mozart's piano quartets and he uses the same fortepiano in the G minor quartet. It sounds identical, just with more noticeable attack due to the closer miking. Toy-like is definitely a quality I hear mentioned with the sound in other reviews. The more you hear it, the more you end up getting used to it though; plus I was overthinking the whole thing to an obsessive degree.

The bass on some of the concertos does feel a little light; others sound good. I compared mostly with Immerseel's set and those sound more full, overall.

I kind of tired myself out comparing this and numerous other recordings. And since the performances here are so exquisite, I settled in and accepted it. It really is worth just sitting down and enjoying the music. I hope you did the same.

 

[Mike-48]

I did sit and enjoy the music, and I certainly will listen to more of them. I have a bunch of M. piano concertos by various artists but haven't really found my favorites. The batch by Brautigam are beautifully played but let down by lackluster accompaniment to my ears.

I agree -- there's little in our hobby more exhausting than critical listening, and often it's less rewarding than just enjoying the music. Yet we all do it from time to time and for various reasons.

 

[Pretorious]

Interesting comment about Brautigam and his set. I've been looking into giving that one a listen. Brautigam is almost infallible in my book, so it would be a great disappointment to be let down by the orchestra. What do you find lackluster about it? The Kölner Akadamie has been top-notch from other recordings I have by them, so I'm curious of your opinion.

 

[Mike-48]

Glad you asked. "Lackluster" is what I remembered from an earlier listen, but I played back #24 last night and liked it very much. So maybe I was wrong about that.

Agree with you about Ronald Brautigam. Somewhere, I have a recording with him playing a modern piano, and even doing that, his superb musicianship shines through.

 

[Pretorious]

Good to know—thanks for responding. I’ll be sure to check this set out then, and very excitedly, I might add!

I have his recording of one of Mendelssohn‘s piano concertos in which he uses a modern instrument and it is equally superb. I was glad to find that he transitioned to period instruments and the same band mentioned above to record the rest of Mendelssohn’s concertos. Well worth it, if you haven’t already heard it.

 

[StevenEleven]

Gave the above-discussed Bilson/Gardiner set a listen today out of curiosity, both on headphones and speakers, on both Qobuz and Spotify. To me the piano is not forward enough in the recording and the deeper aspects of the tone of the piano are not faithfully enough recorded, and there is insufficient sense of decay of the notes, even given that it is apparently a period fortepiano, if I understand correctly. So these are not satisfying or truly enjoyable recordings for me, especially given that there are so many great recordings of the Mozart piano concertos. It was worth a listen though. The tympani sounds good with deep tones, as do the brass and woodwinds, so I am not sure why the sound quality of the piano seems to lag.

As a point of comparison and perhaps a good reference point, the BIS label Ronald Brautigam / Kolner Akademie / Micheal Alexander Willens Mozart complete piano concertos set, also on period instruments, is tremendously more to my taste. It sounds very lifelike to me, the recording quality is in a whole different league for my taste, and the performances are stunning, at least for me. That is what performances on a period fortepiano of Mozart piano concertos should sound like, IMHO.

 

[Pretorious]

Ah, you are in the same spot I was when critically listening to this set, and first making this post, @StevenEleven. Something just felt off about this recording as a whole. As mentioned in my OP, I can only attribute this to the idiosyncrasies of DG's much criticized recording techniques. It seems I always find something in a recording of theirs that makes me scratch my head and wonder how on earth such a thing was done.

The tympani sounds good with deep tones, as do the brass and woodwinds, so I am not sure why the sound quality of the piano seems to lag.

This was probably the main reason that I became so confused of why the sound is the way it is. The tones of the other instruments sound tonally correct and full, so why would the fortepiano be different? The only logical conclusion was that is simply the sound of the instrument. The balance of it certainly contributes to it sounding the way it does, too.

Now on to the Brautigam set, as if I needed more motivation to do so!

 

[Robin L]

Any information on this instrument? The sound of the orchestra is first class, well balanced. The sound of the fortepiano suggests to me that the instrument is of recent build, not an "original" instrument, as its sound is so even and regular. I've recorded fortepianos, most of what I recorded involved old instruments with bad regulation and great difficulty holding pitch. Can't say I'm a fan of the fortepiano, it's really a developing idea of what this sort of instrument should sound and play like, one that really didn't sort itself out until it turned into the modern piano. Harpsichords had more time to develop, to max out construction and sound. The fortepiano was more of an interim experiment.

 

[jhwalker]

Any information on this instrument? The sound of the orchestra is first class, well balanced. The sound of the fortepiano suggests to me that the instrument is of recent build, not an "original" instrument, as its sound is so even and regular. I've recorded fortepianos, most of what I recorded involved old instruments with bad regulation and great difficulty holding pitch. Can't say I'm a fan of the fortepiano, it's really a developing idea of what this sort of instrument should sound and play like, one that really didn't sort itself out until it turned into the modern piano. Harpsichords had more time to develop, to max out construction and sound. The fortepiano was more of an interim experiment.

Much as I am generally a fan of HIP, I simply can't enjoy the fortepiano. It just sounds like a saloon piano - I keep expecting Marshall Dillon to come barreling through the swinging doors to visit Miss Kitty

 

[pma]

This is a topic that has been on my mind for a long, long time. Too long, in fact. Hopefully, you kind people of this forum will finally put an end to my equivocation about this recording.

The performances by both Malcolm Bilson and John Eliot Gardiner are superb; of that there is no question. There is, however, something that has always kept me from truly enjoying this set. And that is the recorded sound of the fortepiano used by Bilson throughout. Now, I am an enormous fan of period instrument and HIP performances, so it is not the sound of the fortepiano per se; it is simply the sound of the fortepiano on this specific recording. It sounds almost nothing like any other fortepiano I have heard in recordings.

Is it, in actuality, as bad as my mind has made it out to be? Is it instead a very good recording and representation of the instrument and I am obsessing over nothing? I have vacillated so many times for so many years that I can no longer be objective about it. I am well aware that DG's sound quality has long been suspect, often times using too many microphones or spot mics in the mix. But is that a factor here? Aside from the piano, the orchestral part sounds quite good and realistic even compared with more contemporary recordings.

I will feel much enlightened by everyone of your opinions, if only to hear a different one than my own.

Here is an example movement from the album that can be listened to for analysis:

Thank you for drawing my attention to this recording. I have immediately added it to my iTunes library and I like it very much!

 

[Pretorious]

Any information on this instrument? The sound of the orchestra is first class, well balanced.

For the Bilson/Gardiner recording? He uses a fortepiano constructed by Philip Belt in 1977 on all but two of the concertos. You can find more information about Belt on his Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Belt

For the Brautigam recording he uses a much more recent fortepiano built by Paul McNulty. You can download the booklets for more information here:

https://www.eclassical.com/performers/brautigam-ronald/mozart-complete-piano-concertos.html

 

[Robin L]

I realize that harpsichords are more stable instruments than fortepianos, so very old harpsichords are still playable. The extra tension of the strings of the early pianos meant the harps and much of the action of original fortepianos would go out of skew. A new instrument would be necessary if one intended to get from one end to another of a Mozart keyboard concerto.

Blandine Verlet had access to antique harpsichords from the collection in the Louvre, used them in her beautiful recordings of François Couperin:

 

[Pretorious]

You are definitely correct. In fact, Bilson brings this up in several of his interviews when discussing the history of recording fortepiano up to the present day. He states that much of the dislike for the instrument came in the early days of HIP recordings when ancient instruments that were poorly maintained and tuned were used. This was the big deal when Philip Belt began constructing his instruments and why recordings using them were, and still are so highly regarded: they revealed a greater evenness of tone and control that wasn't possible on the 'original' original instruments, so to speak.

Listening to that Verlet performance now and the playing and sound are splendid.

 

[Robin L]

My favorite recording of a Mozart piano concerto, Alfred Brendel, Academy of St. Martin in the Fields, Neville Marriner. I'm not sure if a conductor is really necessary in this music, but it didn't hurt in this case. Very nice engineering, keen eared folk might pick up a trace of background hiss but everything is right in place:

 

[Pretorious]

Excellent pick! I enjoyed this one as well and listened to it frequently before I became interested in period performances. For a modern instrument set, Brendel is wonderful. I also thoroughly enjoyed Anda’s set on DG; everything seemed to work so well in those performances.

 

[Pretorious]

For those who are interested, I did more listening and comparing and have more insight on these recordings in relation to others.

I took the 24th concerto as a starting point and compared Bilson's with Brautigam's. Indeed the difference in tone between the recordings is prominent. The sound of the fortepiano cannot be wholly attributed to it being simply the sound, in my opinion. As you put it, @StevenEleven

To me the piano is not forward enough in the recording and the deeper aspects of the tone of the piano are not faithfully enough recorded, and there is insufficient sense of decay of the notes

This would be my experience, as well. It's as if the sparking, top portion of the harmonics are all cut off in the Bilson recording. It is certainly not faithful; Brautigam's recording is much more faithful and rich.

I moved on to compare the concerto for three pianos in the same sets as above. On Brautigam's (and most other recordings I listened to) the image of the three pianos is presented so that one can distinguish within the stereo image when that certain voice is playing. In this case, the three pianos are divided between the left, center and right channels. The effect is wonderfully done.

On Bilson's recording the balance is almost comical. Two of the pianos are hard-panned into the left channel, and the third is panned into the right. The sense of space is terribly confined. And it is almost impossible to distinguish which of the two pianos are playing in the left channel. The engineering here is disappointing coming from such a major label.

 

[Alexanderc]

I've listened to both the Bilson/Gardiner and the Brendel/Marriner recordings within the last week, although not on my "good" stereo at home. I was listening carefully (it was for a class I teach, so the students and I were specifically listening for differences), and noticed nothing I thought was "off" about the fortepiano. I will say that, while I am a fan of HIP in general and Gardiner in particular, many of his recordings (esp. on the Archiv label, it seems to me) do not sound good. Someone earlier mentioned the quality of Gardiner's recordings has been discussed elsewhere, and I would love to read that!

 

[Robin L]

I've listened to both the Bilson/Gardiner and the Brendel/Marriner recordings within the last week, although not on my "good" stereo at home. I was listening carefully (it was for a class I teach, so the students and I were specifically listening for differences), and noticed nothing I thought was "off" about the fortepiano. I will say that, while I am a fan of HIP in general and Gardiner in particular, many of his recordings (esp. on the Archiv label, it seems to me) do not sound good. Someone earlier mentioned the quality of Gardiner's recordings has been discussed elsewhere, and I would love to read that!

I'm copacetic with Pinnock's Bach Harpsichord Concerti, also on Archiv. I'd share the YouTube, but it's a low rez transfer. Interesting, it's very early [1981] digital.

https://music.amazon.com/albums/B000VGAT1S?trackAsin=B000VGEHRA&ref=dm_sh_9002-5c48-f38a-f679-fa71a