Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiscione  Here is how I look at the Haydn Trumpet Concerto - it was written by Haydn in the middle of the "classical" period. Part of what is so appealing about Haydn's music is the simplicity of his musical line, the inherent beauty of each phrase, and the innate sense of honesty within the music. My favorite renditions of this piece exhibit that in the trumpet playing. I think Phil does that and that's why I enjoy this performance. I'm not a concertizing soloist - I play section trumpet, so maybe that influences what I listen for in this piece. That's just me. We are certainly all entitled to our own opinions. |
I agree with a lot of this. Smith does a great job of playing what Haydn gives him. But there really isn't a lot on the page. I think that where we part ways, maybe on our view of this piece in addition to this performance, is that Haydn really doesn't give the modern performer much to work with. You get the notes. I haven't seen any kind of un-edited urtext, but I doubt that he gives much in the way of slurring and dynamics. I think it's safe to assume that Haydn left it up to Weidinger to interpret his work (maybe that's not a safe assumption?).
A few weeks ago a friend of mine who works as a music librarian brought to my attention the fact that Haydn's scores after he moved from Esterhazy to London contained significantly more markings (articulation, dynamics, etc), even within the same piece. (eg. an English score of Symphony 104 might contain twice as many dynamic markings as one published in Vienna) There are a couple of ways to interpret this, but the one that seems most obvious to me is that there was a style of playing in Esterhazy/Vienna that he thought did not exist in London and therefore had to "notate style" for English orchestras. Haydn wrote the trumpet concerto for a Viennese trumpeter, one who would have been familiar with the norms of the Esterhazy court. Haydn most likely would not have needed to give him every nuance, instead leaving it up to Weidinger to "interpret" the piece. What I hear in Phil Smith's recording is what Haydn wrote on the page, played with a beautiful sound, but nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiscione As to your comment about identifying trumpeters based on recordings - is it the musicality of the player that helps you identify them or is it their sound? If Phil has "one of the most beautiful sounds any of us has ever heard," how can you say that you can't identify him? |
It's a beautiful sound, but there's just not a lot of character. Nothing sticks out, good or bad. Quality of sound is not the only way to identify, or judge a musician. There are recordings out there that I don't like, but I prefer them to a recording like Smith's because at least there's something to talk about. You didn't answer my question, though--could you identify this recording on a drop the needle test, and if so, what would the identifying characteristics be? (I realize that I'm assuming that we all consider an identifiable recording a good one. Maybe that's not the case with everyone. EC has a pretty good discussion going on over in his place that addresses this topic)
Thanks for keeping this civil, everyone.
-Jimi