199,344 users have contributed to 43,161 threads and 258,943 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 0 new thread(s), 3 new post(s) and 60 new user(s).
Hi everybody,
another piece of Mozart that everyone has heard at least once in his life : the Symphonie N°40. Always difficult to decide to do something like this because there are 1000 versions already recorded [H]. Here is the finale, using solo and chamber strings, woodwinds and horns from the Standard edition. Enjoy !
All the best.
Philippe
Hi Philippe,
overall a nice work. I think it could benefit from a less "rugged" and more "three-dimesional" strings setup (try to think of it as "stretching" the Z-axis of the space percieved to be occupied by the strings). Together with achieving a less mechanic ("hacked" legato) in some places (especially runs), it could make a real improvment.
Philippe,
I have the highest respect for what you do, and in fact am really inspired by it. So I never want to criticize you and feel disturbed to do so, but I felt that this particular piece did not work with the "baroque" senza vibrato soloistic approach that your others did. I hasten to add - this may be because I'm used to it with modern orchestras. But that may be part of the problem. This piece is so great and expressive that modern orchestras have claimed it as their own. So your performance sounds a bit off, with the more spare, stark sounds you used. It just seems it should be more espressivo.
Also, perhaps this brings up the question - with all the current "original instrumentation" mania - I seriously wonder what composers of the time would think, if given the choice of having their piece performed by "original instruments" or the London Symphony. Or perhaps, the Vienna Philharmonic. Or the Philadelphia Orchestra. Is their music actually represented - or perhaps just IMPRISONED - by "original instruments" ?
Hi Philippe,
first of all, congratulations on your last projects. I've been off the forum lately, but I visited now your youtube channel, heard your last classics, and enjoyed your work as always (I especially liked the orchestral part of CPE Bach's flute concerto). The orchestral part of Mozart's Dies Irae was also very effectively programmed, and Hummel's chamber music was a nice surprise. Also, after listening to Charpentier I felt like having... some Lully? :-)
@William said:
Also, perhaps this brings up the question - with all the current "original instrumentation" mania - I seriously wonder what composers of the time would think, if given the choice of having their piece performed by "original instruments" or the London Symphony. Or perhaps, the Vienna Philharmonic. Or the Philadelphia Orchestra. Is their music actually represented - or perhaps just IMPRISONED - by "original instruments" ?
Yours is the obvious question, isn't it? But, as old masters are not here with us to choose, we choose for them... and the war begins 😊. I would say we simply have more options now... which would healthily mean more freedom, but usually means more dogmas, and conflicts. We now have the freedom even to have them VSLized 😊 What I find insane is to elevate our choices or preferences into "rules" or "true representations", as some ancient music fanatics claim (though they themselves would not accept the conditions in which old musicians worked, and performed; they, "purists", accept only their instruments 😊, and, of course, what they think was their stylistic conventions...) If we play that game, we could not only talk about "music prisons", but actually "music madhouses" 😊. In this regard, I totally agree with you.
Anyway, I'm the kind of guy who downloads a Spectrum emulator on a i7 - 8Gb PC just to play a game called Match Point, which I enormously enjoyed as a kid. So, go figure what old masters would have preferred if they were among us today...
I believe that the Original Instruments and Performance Practice movement gave us something to think about, as - to the point of possibility - they were right to point out that the masters wrote for the ensembles at hand; hence, they had those particular sounds and balances in mind when composing. It was (and is still) a very interesting take on things, and I always welcomed their interpretations as alternatives; not as Gospel.
For there is another factor that the fanatics seem to be forgetting. Whenever a technological/methodological breakthrough occured, all the great composers followed. From Bach, to Mozart and Beethoven, and then Liszt etc., they all upgraded their keyboard instruments as they became available. They all progressively included new instruments (or brought them over from the opera stage) in their ensemble works, and they all welcomed (even demanded - Beethoven, Berlioz, etc.) greater number of players in their orchestras as it became practical. Inductively, that leads me to believe that would a modern symphony orchestra be available to them, they would prefer to write for it (also for the metallic, as opposed for the wooden flute, the F/Bb horns instead of the old limited ones, etc.).
In the case in point, violins haven't really changed since Mozart's time - if at all, excepting maybe the strings' materials and the bow slightly(? where is DG). The only aesthetic "dilemma" would be to either increase the numbers of players and the vibrato.
Hi Philippe
Listen to Niklaus Harnoncourt
He is a master of Baroque Interpretations.
Believe me he would be the first who would play the mozart without Vibrato if it should be. And think of the Mozart's life... vibrato fits more to him than no vibrato.
So we can take your interpretation as it is.
OK but then I must say it sounds very midi-like because we always recognize the same - not very musically - without-vibrato-sample(s).
Why did you play the mozart this way?
Beat
P Paul moved this topic from Orchestration & Composition on
