Luis M. Araya

Ed and TMers,

I just finished to listen Urban Agnas version of Hummel Concerto and liked it very, very, very much. it is on the Chandos label: CHAN9925 HUMMEL: Overture in D major / Mandolin Concerto in G major / Trumpet Concerto in E major, London Mozart Players, Howard Shelley, Conductor.

Besides all the good qualities we all know Urban has, I liked especially the tempo of the third movement. It was around quater note = 120-126 (a little slow from most versions) and it is the first time that I can distinguish the dotted 16th notes with 32th notes in the violin parts at bars 26-36 of the 3rd. mov. Although, they still sound awkward.

I have always thought that modern tempos for baroque and classical music are too fast. I would play the 3rd. mov. even at QN= 105 to 110. and the 1st. mov. slower than normal. But I wonder how people would take it. Would people get bored from such "slow" tempi?. It is not because I could not play it fast, but just because I feel it would sound better stylisticly.

I am looking forward for your replies,

Luis.

ecarroll

Luis,

Urban is a wonderful musician and trumpeter. I'll tell the story another day about giving him lessons in NYC years ago (pointless, as he had it far better together than I at that point. All I offered him was admiration and encouragement). I haven't heard this recording, however.

Generally speaking (variables being acoustic and ensemble clarity) I look for a tempo relationship between the outer movements in classical concerti, believing that symmetry and proportion are hallmarks of the era. I keep the same tactus in both, with the only difference being 4 beats to the bar in first movements and alla breve (2 beats to the bar) in third movements.

Works for me,
EC

rowuk

I think that the Hummel does not have the musical "substance" that most other non-trumpet classical concertos have and that allows for a more "playful" interpretation. I consider it to be pop music from the 18th century - very entertaining even if it was to mark Hummels entry to the court of Esterházy in Vienna following Haydn. It sounds "cool" even to the casual listener. No sin in assymetrical tempi.........

Prinz Anton was not the consummate music lover and Haydns function towards the end was primarily ceremonial activities (including an annual Mass each year for the princess' name day). Haydn biographer Karl Geiringer describes Anton's son and successor Nicolaus II thus: "He was as complete an autocrat as his grandfather had been, but lacked the latter's charm, kindliness, and genuine understanding of music . . . contemporaries described the prince's nature as 'worthy of an Asiatic despot'". Nikolaus II commissioned the six late masses of Haydn noted above, as well as the Mass in C of Ludwig van Beethoven. At the first performance of the Beethoven Mass, the Prince criticized the work, and Beethoven left his house in a rage. This could very well be the reason that the Hummel Concerto was not a deep musical statement, Hummel was a very capable composer! In 1811, Hummel was dismissed for neglecting his duties (the House of Esterházy ran out of money anyway due to the princes art collecting ventures, so maybe this was just an excuse!).

In any case, Urban has a very natural musicality and I will order the CD today. Thanks for the tip!

JJ

I have this cd and highly recommend it. It's very well played and a very different interpretation from what's usually heard.

JJ

ecarroll

Robin,

I remember a conversation with Tom Stevens describing Eric Leinsdorf's opinion of the Hummel Concerto. After carefully examination and analysis of the score Herr Leinsdorf called the piece (I'm re-creating, not quoting) "a perfectly constructed work -- every rule of composition is scrupulously followed -- and perhaps the shittiest piece I've ever seen. Not one idea is original or inspired".

The Haydn, on the other hand, is a different story. . .

Best,
EC (thinks that the Hummel is fun to play, nevertheless)