Mozart sonata k 283

Day to everyone! I am re-proposing the first two movements of the sonata... this one on the harpsichord though!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0yO3Vxa3NyVb1NvWEJQSGJpbGc/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0yO3Vxa3NyVQXZ2SzBrTHpnQzg/view?usp=drivesdk

Day to everyone!

I am re-proposing the first two movements of the forte sonata, with a few slips; I cut the second refrain of the second movement due to time issues, they were about to lock me inside the classroom

(Oh don't tell me it's out of tune because I had tuned it personally a few hours before )

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0yO3Vxa3NyVUjBreWhhLU1fWjg/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0yO3Vxa3NyVeFFhd1hlVUhJT2M/view?usp=drivesdk

Hi Antares, I am not a great musician, I'm just a mediocre strummer; I consider myself only a good listener.

I know several versions of this Mozart sonata. Compared to the versions I have listened to, this one seems very slow to me. The first movement is an allegro, so it should be at least a tiny bit faster (Allegro 120 - 169). I don't know if it's a difficulty of the fortepiano since it is an instrument I have never played, but I sense some technical problems emerging especially in the scales. I don't know if these continuous slowing down and picking up are part of a playing style typical of the fortepiano, but I must say they do not seem properly Mozartian to me, or at least not attributable to the interpretations of the greats (Uchida, Schiff, Gieseking, Richter, etc.).

I admit that the recording is a bit slow, but I can't do much with the metronome markings... Anyway, it is a bit slower than it should be; I should record it again when I have time. The sighs and rubatos are all intentional, and I know perfectly well that they are not in style with modern recordings... But mine is an attempt at historical reconstruction, not a modern recording... You also have to take this into account; if you want to hear something that can resemble mine, you must be completely clear about the musicians..But I can assure you that they are perfectly in line with the Mozartian style.

I don't know, I repeat, I am not an expert in ancient styles, but certainly anyone who has always listened to modern piano recordings of this Mozart sonata remains a bit disoriented. Who can I listen to in order to get back to your interpretation?

Start listening to Malcolm Bilson, Bart Van Oort and Andreas Staier to begin... Obviously, being used to modern performances on Steinway, what I do is completely different... In certain ways, it is a more harpsichord-like style...

I have just heard Malcolm Bilson's interpretation of the allegro. Certainly there are moments where the tempo varies slightly, however they do not seem extreme to me, in a style more Chopin-esque than Mozartian. This is my impression. Perhaps someone else will also give their impressions...

I would also like to hear Bilson's interpretation (I couldn't find it) and I am also very interested in the discussion about Mozartian style over time. I think it is a very interesting thing to delve into. In this sense, I can only take advantage of your experience as a fortepianist and harpsichordist.

but perhaps what Stefano says is something that is independent of this discussion. The regularity of the tempo is what allows you to give expressiveness. Respect for time and expression seem to be in antithesis only superficially, but they are closely connected. Perhaps I am expressing obvious concepts and I apologize. What I mean is that only a regular pulse of time allows one to appreciate the breaths that develop within it anyway. Our ear needs to give order and coherence to sounds, and the constant and regular pulse within which to move while breathing becomes fundamental in this sense. In my opinion, this is a constant principle regardless of which composer is played and with whatever tempo rubato is interpreted.

always try to identify reference points....this pulse...make it your own without a metronome. The metronome can be useful (perhaps) for studying certain passages and indicating the tempo changes. But the beat of the metronome must be internalized to be useful; otherwise, it simply becomes an antagonist to your interpretation.

imagine that you are working (obviously) also on the clarity of the passages at a technical level...this is obvious and the inevitable slips during the study process are more than physiological, but you will see that by working (if you agree) on these concepts of tempo and expressiveness, the performance will gain a lot, at least in my opinion!!

No, I think there are some issues to clarify... The metronome would do me more harm than good... The rhythmic pulse is only indicative... It is the musical phrases themselves that provide the pulse, but it is the phrases themselves and the frequent hemiolas that modify them! Here we are talking about an interpretive style that is more than just harpsichord-like, heavily influenced by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach and Johann Christian Bach! Mozart himself was actually a harpsichordist... I cannot disregard a more harpsichord-like style on Mozart... And the metric pulse is secondary in this case... There are some things that aren't working and that mess things up a bit, especially the closing of the exposition and the recapitulation... But those are my errors, having placed two short pauses in contrast to each other... And in that case, they cancel out the rubato effect... For that reason, when I have time, I should re-record the entire sonata... Regarding inaccuracies on the turns (volatine), nothing to object to, but trying to control a fortepiano as if it were a Steinway is impossible... I'm not saying it can't be done better, and truth be told, it is already better now compared to when I recorded it months ago... But controlling an instrument like that is more complex.

PS. I thank Simone for posting the first movement played by Bilson.

In effect, I wasn't convinced by the performance, but I intended it as a work in progress. I take it for granted that it will mature in the future. Nancy's observation regarding the pulse is also correct. I don't feel the 'discourse'... so to speak. A piece begins by narrating and ends by abandoning what was being narrated during the performance. When listening to Mozart, Chopin, Mompou, and a thousand others, we feel captivated... and I assure you... not only by their music... but by that which goes hand in hand with the person sitting there telling it.... the pianist.

The narration begins with its rhythm and its timbres and you listen... but at a certain point everything collapses and it becomes difficult to continue listening... perhaps the story is true? Is it finished? Will another part begin? I say this because it happens to me many times and I realize that I don't have the piece in my hands... I am not the piece, so to speak... I don't have the impulse in my heart.

Your hands do not tremble, everything is rational... but something is missing.

I brought this sonata to the 5th year and I must say that I performed it reasonably well but... how difficult I found it... and it is tricky in my opinion.

A single second of failure in the pulse and everything collapses... as I always say... the string is not taut.. and then Mozart; all too often presented as an author who falls easily under the fingers, is a true hell... with that myriad of micro-phrases... and the high frequencies...

As for the instrument, I know that the harpsichord does not allow for forte and piano like the piano, and even the fortepiano does not have that large range available... however, harpsichordists of the caliber of Rubsam, for example, make heavy use of the technique of temporal dilation (accelerating and decelerating) precisely to compensate for this lack in the instrument... and you feel it even when playing the piano... it is a professional deformation that is difficult to shake off when playing those ancient instruments.... and dynamics in the harpsichord are also obtained through these means... but... these falls and reflections that are too long and marked, I don't feel them as part of the piece, so to speak.

Perhaps I will gladly await a new version.

Let me know if I have said things that make no sense.

When I have time I will record...I believe it is mainly a matter of...A matter of habit more than anything else...Or rather a lack of interpretation by most pianists regarding Mozart's sonatas...Most of them limit themselves to reading what is written..

I also pose a question to you... Why are Mozart's sonatas performed so little as repertoire? (Excluding those 2-3 partially or entirely)

antares86 wrote:

When I have time I will record... I believe it is mainly a matter of... A matter of habit more than anything else... Or rather a lack of interpretation by most pianists regarding Mozart's sonatas... Most of them limit themselves to reading what is written..

I also ask you a question... Why are Mozart's sonatas performed so rarely as repertoire? (Excluding those 2-3, in part or in whole)

in my opinion it's because they are not immediate during study... I mean, they are easy to read but difficult to study because they are actually very difficult and do not have large volumes of sound that satisfy the sense of the classical virtuoso.....BUT they are beautiful.

Ah, but reading the Mozartian repertoire is relatively simple... Bach's keyboard repertoire is also all readable... Unlike Scarlatti, who has various sonatas that are almost unplayable... But at this point... If we exclude Schiff, who at least attempted to provide an interpretation, who remains that has tried? Perhaps Horowitz... But he had a decidedly limited number of sonatas in his repertoire...

I agree that they are not easy at all in terms of interpretation; in fact, I must say they are among the most complicated things, in hindsight, that I have ever done, and for now, I only have two sonatas in my repertoire, the 283 and the 310...

Given, however, that they do not have excessive sound volumes and that on the fortepiano and harpsichord they are further limited by the instrument, one must find other ways! We have chosen those derived from Johann Christian Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel, and consequently indirectly from Johann Sebastian as well, obviously slightly adapted to a generational change; what was valid in the first half of the 1700s is not always still valid at the end of the century (Carl Philipp, if I am not mistaken, was born in 1713 or 14 and Johann Christian in '34, I believe). Obviously, we are not certain that it is exactly relevant to Mozart's style, but besides the Bachs, Leopold Mozart also comes to our aid—for all intents and purposes Wolfgang's teacher; his treatise on the violin is decidedly useful! Moreover, when I have time, I will always re-record Bach's aria variata in the Italian manner, in a semi-new harpsichord style.

I would like to post this interesting document that roots itself in the research of Czerny, Turk, and Badura Skoda on Mozartian touch. I found myself in perfect agreement with what was written and also found confirmation in my own "Mozart touch," learned, moreover, from a student of Badura Skoda.

Well, Turk has a style that is still very baroque... Despite being from the late 1700s, his book is one of the references for late baroque practice... Czerny... Well, he was a pupil of Hummel, who also studied with Mozart... So even if it's quite tight... It has some relevance; Badura-Skoda is a great musicologist just as Rosen was, for example, but as a musician he has several flaws... Let's say that of the three, I would trust Turk more ahahaha

Among other things, Simone Badura-Skoda and his wife had published two books on the interpretation of Mozart and Bach in two volumes, which if I'm not mistaken, I have both... Let's say that Badura-Skoda is pioneering, but I fear that some of his ideas might be outdated.

Consider that Mozart feels much less present in concert halls precisely because he does not have a writing style that fully suits the

Piano. As Frank used to say, unfortunately even today there is a lack of lucid ideas regarding what a student should learn. Mozart is made known as a simple author who is quick to learn. Simple and catchy themes are proposed, and thus they remain imprinted in the heads of novice pianists.

When one then progresses with study "one always returns to old loves," Renoir used to say... it is seen with a completely different thought, but who knows for what reason everyone tends to deepen their knowledge of the entire instrument in the true sense of the term, far and wide across the keyboard range, whereas Mozart does not always push to such extremes.

Unfortunately, the "time" factor always returns. What an enigmatic and problematic word for the performers of all... times... indeed.

Mozart composed for harpsichord or fortepiano and why not... clavichord... but now we have Mozart's music and we lack the two most important things... Mozart and... the harpsichord... in the sense that if we put a harpsichord in a concert hall, the gentlemen preparing to listen to it will position themselves within a mental parameter that includes... (philology, ancient, reinterpretation, cobwebs etc. etc.). Perhaps out of the side of the stage pops up a rasta with mirrored sunglasses ready to improvise jazz...

C.Ph.E Bach had the idea of using both instruments of the era, and therefore both the harpsichord with the piano and forte as well as the old-fashioned harpsichord, not thinking at all about putting the former in the cellar in favor of the latter. And instead, the old-fashioned harpsichord seriously went into the cellar, but was also brought back into vogue in a moment of need... and so, more than 100 years later...

The question is... why?

Because you cannot revive eras without reinventing them... and Landowska knew this well when she had a diabolical instrument built, complete with an iron frame, that had a truly unique range of timbres. She brought a new Bach back to the concert halls but with a new harpsichord. Landowska certainly felt deeply the "novelty" and "eternity" of Bach's music, but she also felt the limit of playing an instrument of the era for herself as a performer and for the ears of those who were meant to listen to it.

I think you know Trevor Pinnock and Kenneth Gilbert... consider that I had the complete works of Bach, i.e., almost everything Bach had written for harpsichord... endless hours of music without any sense... and assuming that these are considered great performers... that sound and that music were "dead" to my ears... and I assure you that I love the sound of the harpsichord... but then I asked myself... why? Simple... that wasn't Bach... it was his ghost...

These are all cerebral considerations and digressions perhaps, but I assure you they contain truths.

To revive an ancient author, it is not enough to play them with all the proper formalities. You must love them to such an extent that you enter their mind and re-present them in a new way, while naturally always remaining faithful to their idea of composition projected into time.

Remember, in fact, that Bach did not compose for harpsichord but for "Keyboard"... Clavier... and while the harpsichord has a well-defined time, the "keyboard" is timeless.

Forgive the length, but I am... prolix by nature...

I hope I have explained something useful.

Anyway, I await the evolution of the k. 283.

Simple differences of opinion... And obviously I don't agree at all ahahah especially regarding harpsichords. Because I don't know why Landowska had that instrument made, anyway explain to me why Pinnock and especially Gilbert wouldn't make sense, I really don't understand it!!!

Sorry, I am blunt as usual, but I think you can try it for yourself.

Listen to 3 hours of these authors, Bach I mean... then listen to the same pieces or similar ones by different authors.

Perhaps I didn't explain well what I meant to say... but I simply cannot find a poetic vein expressed in the best possible way.

Naturally, everything would need to be explored further.