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

[Alexanderc]

I recall recording David Tayler [theorbo, far right] some 30 years ago. He's been involved with these Voices of Music videos for quite a while, some wonderful playing with wonderful engineering. This is new, very fine playing. Sound is very big, very full:

Great performance. I'm intrigued by the timbral difference between the two violins. You can really hear it while they're playing the duet in the first movement.

 

[Robin L]

Great performance. I'm intrigued by the timbral difference between the two violins. You can really hear it while they're playing the duet in the first movement.

Kati Kyme and Elizabeth Blumenstock, recorded them many times, mostly for the San Francisco Early Music Society [SFEMS], all of it in the 1990s. I'll never forget Elizabeth Blumenstock handing me her violin at an early music festival in Berkeley, some 25 years ago or so. I looked inside and saw Stradivarius' signature. A bit scary for a moment. Ms. Blumenstock was playing an original instrument, belonging to UC Berkeley, restored to as close to original condition as possible. It was very dark toned, nearly the opposite of what one would expect with an "Original Instrument". Naturally, I was nervous. On the other hand, when working with small diaphragm condenser microphones, one learns to avoid dropping things.

 

[Pretorious]

I too am a fan of period instruments for the most part. But when it comes to fortepiano - I can’t seem to make the leap. I heard Frank Brueggen conduct the Orchestra of the Eighteenth Century. It was a while ago so I don’t remember the pianist. But one of Mozarts later piano concertos was on the bill. It was difficult for me to sit through it. I just can’t get past the clatter of the mechanisms and what seems to me to be the very limited articulation compared to modern pianos. I often wonder what Beethoven had in mind given that his piano pieces would be rendered on instruments such as these.

Like the examples in this thread, there can definitely be a wide difference of perceived sound with how a piano is recorded, or with how it's heard within a live setting due to the venue.

There are plenty of recordings of fortepiano that are closed miked to the point where you can easily hear the action working and the pedals or levers being operated. Then there those where the mic distance is backed off a bit and these I find to be the best representation of the instrument and the most pleasant. There are also plenty of recordings of modern pianos that are miked closely that sound so dull; as if it were trying to prove the point that HIP performers critique it for. There are many more recordings of modern grands that are extremely well-done and sound beautiful, deep and resonant.

 

[Pretorious]

An example of Archiv’s expertise at engineering: I’ve been listening to those Pinnock harpsichord concertos posted earlier. I’ve always had and loved the discs with the double and triple concertos, but did not have the single concertos, so decided to listen to them. Wow, do these sound good! I have been disparaging towards the label’s sound quality earlier, but these are excellent all around. What makes it even more impressive is that the set of single concertos is apparently an analog recording from 1979. You would be hard pressed to hear the difference to the rest of the set, though, as they sound identical to the digital ones. I didn’t even hear any tape hiss in the quiet movements. Truly excellent!

 

[hvbias]

My own opinion on period performances for things like where the instruments are similar enough, ie fortepiano or piano, stringed instruments like violins, etc I will generally prefer the modern instrument. The performances better be damn good in either case, I won't listen to HIP just for the sake of having a HIP interpretation.

Where they are radically different and the other instrument is pretty much a transcription, here I find having recordings made on the instrument it was composed for truly invaluable. The best example I can think of is the harpsichord vs piano.

Additionally I strongly think it is worth having period instrument/practice performances for the great works of music just to have a frame of reference for what the composer would have heard or imagined.

One such example that I think is an absolutely fantastic document on this is Paul Badura-Skoda's cycle of Beethoven Piano Sonatas recorded for Astree (once quite hard to find, now thankfully back in print by Arcana). PBS uses his own vintage fortepianos that are exceptionally well restored and he uses a fortepiano corresponding to the year that Beethoven composed each sonata. As such a fortepiano from the Op. 49 to say Op. 106 will sound quite different. These being true vintage fortepianos they have a myriad of mechanical noises not found on reproductions. But I personally find this part of the charm.

Interpretatively I also think he is more interesting than Ronald Brautigam's rather one note cycle, mainly saying this due to the uniformity of brisk tempi Brautigam chooses but there are other reasons it's a bit bland as well. Where I do find Brautigam is first rate is in the Diabelli Variations, these were also recorded by BIS in fine sound.

I have more to write on the thread topic of Mozart Piano Concertos, I'll formulate my thoughts on those more and make a separate post.

 

[Pretorious]

I have PBS performing the Schubert sonatas on period instruments and agree that the mechanical noises are appealing in order to get a feel for what the instrument is doing and how that affects the performance of the music; this being in addition to the clarity of the registers in the sound. And it is this clarity, as you mentioned, that is so valuable when hearing the differences between similar interpretations of keyboard music.

I could see that complaint of Brautigam's interpretations where much of the focus is on speed and dexterity. Generally, I too prefer more variation of tempo choices rather than it always being quick. However, he does have a way of pulling you in through sheer virtuosity where one finds it hard to not be awed by his playing. I would say this is definitely more of a merit than a detraction from his playing.

I look forward to your upcoming thoughts.

 

[hvbias]

I have PBS performing the Schubert sonatas on period instruments and agree that the mechanical noises are appealing in order to get a feel for what the instrument is doing and how that affects the performance of the music; this being in addition to the clarity of the registers in the sound. And it is this clarity, as you mentioned, that is so valuable when hearing the differences between similar interpretations of keyboard music.

I could see that complaint of Brautigam's interpretations where much of the focus is on speed and dexterity. Generally, I too prefer more variation of tempo choices rather than it always being quick. However, he does have a way of pulling you in through sheer virtuosity where one finds it hard to not be awed by his playing. I would say this is definitely more of a merit than a detraction from his playing.

I look forward to your upcoming thoughts.

I do enjoy those PBS fortepiano recordings of Schubert very much as well. So much so that I ended up buying the old Astree CDs of Schubert's works that weren't included in the Arcana box.

Onto the thread topic -
For frame of reference my favorite large cycles are Geza Anda and Murray Perahia. I have read many opinions that Camerata Academica des Salzburg were not a great orchestra back when Anda recorded his cycle. For the life of me the only thing I can hear "wrong" with them are they are not the most dynamic orchestra, I really struggle to hear more at fault with them than that. And because I have listened to this cycle for so long when I hear them with Sandor Vegh/Schiff when the orchestra was much better the orchestra playing is so extremely dynamic that it is hard for my ears to get adjusted to this; it almost sounds like an orchestra scored for some of Mahler's larger symphonies in comparison! (hyperbole) . This is a deficiency on my own part there is no doubt that Sandor Vegh does an extremely fine job with them, it's just not to my taste in the early piano concertos. And in the more popular, more recorded works there are more characterful pianists I find myself liking than Schiff. For me Schiff really came into his own by the time he started recording with ECM, albums like JSB's Partitas are pure stunning musicianship that I don't hear on early Decca Schiff who is more conservative and less adventurous.

With fewer recordings I enjoy ones from Fazil Say, Rudolf Serkin, Peter Serkin, Wilhelm Kempff, Leon Fleisher, Friedrich Gulda and Edwin Fisher just off the top of my head, there are many more that have recorded fine Mozart Piano Concertos, this is repertoire that is "pianist's pianist" type music.

Now onto HIP:

I am not so sure I hear a vast difference in piano sound from either Malcolm Bilson or Ronald Brautigam. Both have a characteristic modern reproduction fortepiano sound that is light on bass and more tilted toward the upper midrange and treble. For me at least I do not hear a large enough difference to make this a meaningful thing in choosing one cycle over the other. If someone has particular segments or works where the differences are really large please mention them and I will jump to them.

One reviewer actually thinks that Bilson is more convincing than Brautigam: https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-16185/

And in Hurwitz's video lecture series he chose Bilson as the reference HIP choice. There is also Immerseel on Channel Classics though this set is out of print, it does turn up used and isn't that hard to find. I haven't heard it.

Where I am interested in hearing people's thoughts is on interpretation between Bilson and Brautigam. I've listened to 24/25 from Brautigam and I'm not really hearing any orchestral deficiencies here either. With the context of it being a chamber orchestra and their natural limitations.

I've been listening on my laptop with headphones since I don't own either of the cycles, I've been trying to determine which one to buy.

 

[oboist]

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:

Indeed a conductor is not needed. I love this recording with Richard Goode and Orpheus.

 

[Pretorious]

I am not so sure I hear a vast difference in piano sound from either Malcolm Bilson or Ronald Brautigam. Both have a characteristic modern reproduction fortepiano sound that is light on bass and more tilted toward the upper midrange and treble. For me at least I do not hear a large enough difference to make this a meaningful thing in choosing one cycle over the other. If someone has particular segments or works where the differences are really large please mention them and I will jump to them.

If I can help you out here I will certainly try my best.

I would say it's the general tone or recording quality of the fortepiano of Bilson's as opposed to the Brautigam set that is the major difference to me. The main instrument that Bilson uses seems to lack any sort of 'sparkle' in the upper registers, for lack of a better explanation. Compare the bright and complex tone of Brautigam's instrument to it and it sounds night and day difference. I also own the Immerseel set, and while the interpretations are sometimes a little more restrained as the other two, the tone of the piano is as rich and full as Brautigam's.

Try comparing the concerto for three pianos, K. 242 between Bilson and crew and Brautigam and his associates. The fortepianos on the former sound very weak and tinny. And as I mentioned in a previous post, even the balance of the instruments is lackluster in the Bilson recording. Please share your thoughts after listening; I am always curious to hear other opinions.

Where I am interested in hearing people's thoughts is on interpretation between Bilson and Brautigam.

I have not listened to all of Brautigam's interpretations yet, but from what I hear they are excellent. However, Bilson/Gardiner would still have the advantage here in this regard, in my honest opinion. Gardiner can do almost no wrong, to me, when in control of an orchestra; and Bilson's playing is exquisite. Additionally, his cadenzas are perhaps unbeatable, and I have yet to find a set where the cadenzas are as gripping as his.

In his lectures (which you can find on Cornell University's YouTube channel, and I highly recommend) he often speaks of the 'rhythmic vitality' that one can achieve when playing with these old instruments and performance practices. This is what I find he and Gardiner capture more than anyone else in this set. Listen and compare the 3rd movement of the 5th concerto. No one seems to play the rapid, stilted sequences as well as Bilson does.

I also find that Bilson/Gardiner like to slow down when necessary. Brautigam seems to take everything much faster, in the works I've heard thus far (Jeunehomme, the minor key concertos, the rondos).

 

[Alexanderc]

I'm not sure a rich and full tone is really what I would expect from a fortepiano. Maybe it's a matter of degrees.

 

[hvbias]

If I can help you out here I will certainly try my best.

I would say it's the general tone or recording quality of the fortepiano of Bilson's as opposed to the Brautigam set that is the major difference to me. The main instrument that Bilson uses seems to lack any sort of 'sparkle' in the upper registers, for lack of a better explanation. Compare the bright and complex tone of Brautigam's instrument to it and it sounds night and day difference. I also own the Immerseel set, and while the interpretations are sometimes a little more restrained as the other two, the tone of the piano is as rich and full as Brautigam's.

Try comparing the concerto for three pianos, K. 242 between Bilson and crew and Brautigam and his associates. The fortepianos on the former sound very weak and tinny. And as I mentioned in a previous post, even the balance of the instruments is lackluster in the Bilson recording. Please share your thoughts after listening; I am always curious to hear other opinions.

Thank you I will give those a listen, it might take me a week or so before I can reply again. By any chance do you have any suggestions for ones for single piano? This might make it easier to hear what is going on.

I've found a way to hear these in lossless which means I can apply ReplayGain to get very close matching rather than having to make manual adjustments with Youtube.

I have not listened to all of Brautigam's interpretations yet, but from what I hear they are excellent. However, Bilson/Gardiner would still have the advantage here in this regard, in my honest opinion. Gardiner can do almost no wrong, to me, when in control of an orchestra; and Bilson's playing is exquisite. Additionally, his cadenzas are perhaps unbeatable, and I have yet to find a set where the cadenzas are as gripping as his.

In his lectures (which you can find on Cornell University's YouTube channel, and I highly recommend) he often speaks of the 'rhythmic vitality' that one can achieve when playing with these old instruments and performance practices. This is what I find he and Gardiner capture more than anyone else in this set. Listen and compare the 3rd movement of the 5th concerto. No one seems to play the rapid, stilted sequences as well as Bilson does.

Yep, I definitely agree with you on Gardiner. I have his full cycle of JS Bach's Sacred Cantatas and it is my favorite cycle out of the others I own between him, Ton Koopman and Harnoncourt/Leonhardt. Ton Koopman's may be my reference cycle but Gardiner brings that "zest" and verticalness to the music (probably helped by being live) that Harnoncourt/Leonhardt have except with much better singers and more virtuoso playing.

I also find that Bilson/Gardiner like to slow down when necessary. Brautigam seems to take everything much faster, in the works I've heard thus far (Jeunehomme, the minor key concertos, the rondos).

I suspect this is another that would have me preferring Bilson, as we briefly touched a few posts up it was one of my complaints with his Beethoven Piano Sonata cycle, though I imagine I would have still bought it but the competition in Beethoven Piano Sonata cycles is bloody stiff. That propulsive brio he has really works in Diabelli Variations where I find him just as good as Rudolf Serkin (Columbia or live) or Kovacevich's stunning live recording on Onyx.

I'm not sure a rich and full tone is really what I would expect from a fortepiano. Maybe it's a matter of degrees.

Yes indeed, I agree.

 

[Pretorious]

By any chance do you have any suggestions for ones for single piano? This might make it easier to hear what is going on.

I recommend trying the Jenuehomme, the 14th and the 15th concerto. Reason being is the recording quality in the Bilson set is pretty inconsistent, and I feel you’ll notice this difference when comparing the above concertos (in addition to the three piano concerto). The spacing of the instruments in the 14th by Bilson is quite hard to each side. So, the violins are stuck in the left channel and, to my ears, I never hear the ambiance bleeding into the other channels. I have never heard balance like this in anything but DG recordings. You’ll find similar balance issues in the other concertos mentioned, and in the multi-piano ones (my notes of which you can find in a previous post in this thread). It gives the recording a very claustrophobic quality, as another poster mentioned earlier. It also lacks spacing around the orchestra that one can hear on other recordings, another observation listed earlier. Again, this is something I’ve only ever noticed in DG recordings, which has caused me to shy away from them throughout the years.

I'm not sure a rich and full tone is really what I would expect from a fortepiano. Maybe it's a matter of degrees.

Perhaps that’s not how I should describe it. It’s really that bright, sparkly tone; rich in overtones. That sound that makes a fortepiano so clear and unique. The sound quality on the Bilson recording does not capture this from the instrument. It sounds very dull, tinny, toylike. Bilson has a cycle of Mozart’s piano sonatas on the Hungaroton label in which he uses the same instrument. It sounds nothing like how DG captured it for the concertos. That is, it sounds much better, as one might expect it to sound.