HIP complete Mozart symph set: Pinnock or Hogwood?
Simon Roberts
"Rob Taylor" <rta...@netmail.net> wrote in message
news:h294pug97vgnj1jl0...@4ax.com...
> I noticed the $25 Pinnock set from HMV.com is back in stock -- but
> also have an opportunity to buy Hogwood's complete Mozart symphonies
> from a private party for about the same price. Any opinions regarding
> a clear-cut choice, or six-to-one...?
You may want to check the google archives on this - the same question
has come up before and received several responses, including mine. In
one respect, there's a clear-cut choice: Pinnock's offers more polished
playing and perhaps better recorded sound. There's also a clear cut
choice, but in the opposite direction, if you want everything that might
be considered a symphony, and multiple versions where applicable: there
Hogwood wins: for instance, he gives you two complete performances each
of 31 and 40 (and perhaps one or two others - I can't remember), and the
symphony truncations of some serenades, including Posthorn and Haffner
(not to be confused with the Haffner symphony). Another point in
Hogwood's favor (for me, anyway) is that in symphonies where the score
has trumpets but no timpani, he adds them (on the assumption that they
would have been played ad lib); this doesn't affect any of the major
symphonies (except 32, I think), however, and Hogwood rather undermines
the point of doing this by downplaying the brass and timpani anyway -
his still manage to be string-dominated performances, even 38 where the
orchestra has a tiny string section - I consider this a factor not in
his favor (Pinnock can be wimpy in that regard too). Which brings me to
another point in Hogwood's favor (perhaps): he tries to use per symphony
the size of orchestra Mozart is likely to have had - so it's sometimes
very small, sometimes (Paris) very big.
Interpretatively, they're not hugely different. Pinnock's are a bit
more distinctively shaped, perhaps, but the differences between them are
nothing like the differences between these two and Harnoncourt.
That's all I'll say for now on the matter. It might help to know,
though, if you have any particular biases/preferences etc. with regard
to interpretations of this music - then you could get more specific
answers that you might find more helpful.
Simon
Margaret Mikulska
Rob Taylor wrote:
> I noticed the $25 Pinnock set from HMV.com is back in stock -- but
> also have an opportunity to buy Hogwood's complete Mozart symphonies
> from a private party for about the same price. Any opinions regarding
> a clear-cut choice, or six-to-one...?
The choice is not clear-cut, for many reasons. I have both and if I
were you, I would buy both. But if you have to choose...
PINNOCK
Pros:
* Extremely lively and energetic playing. While for last 5-6 symphonies
there is a strong competition, for the rest, esp. for the earlier works,
the competition is weaker. Mozart's earlier symphonies were still of
the "opening and closing racket" kind, not the magisterial and profound
works that the symphonies became later, so unless the performances have
real zest and spark, the works can be less than thrilling.
Cons:
* Random (it seems) choice of observing the repeats. Sometimes a
section (e.g. exposition) begs for repetition, but he goes on to the
next section. Possibly a bit too much of harpsichord continuo.
* They intended to record only the genuine, "canonical" symphonies:
basically, the really doubtful works are not included (let alone the few
spurious works still known to some as Mozart's), nor are symphonies
extracted from the orch. serenades or, IIRC, symphonies made of operatic
overtures. But two or so symphonies discovered in the 1980s are
included.
HOGWOOD/SCHROEDER:
Pros:
* The set includes about everything that was performed, at least in the
20th C, as "Mozart symphonies". That includes all that is missing in
the Pinnock set (see above), a.o., Mozart/M.Haydn K. 444, both slow
movements to the Paris Symphony K 297, the spurious Odense Symphony,
some doubtful works, all symphonies from overtures, some overtures that
were performed as stand-alone symphonies, symphonies from serenades,
both versions of K 550 (with and w/o clarinets), etc.
* As HIP goes, this set is very much historically informed, recorded
under the supervision of Neal Zaslaw (whose book on Mozart symphonies
can be regarded as a companion to this set, for all practical
purposes). On the other hand, it's been ca. 30 years since the
recording was made, and some decisions concerning the performance
practice might be different now.
(Note that the original multi-volume set correctly listed both Schröder
and Hogwood: the symphonies were performed the way it was done in
Mozart's times, i.e., with a concert master conducting from the first
violin stand and a continuo player, from the harpsichord or, later, the
piano. Neither is more or less important. The budget reissue list only
Hogwood (as the conductor, I assume), which is plain wrong and was done
despite Zaslaw's protests. I suppose it would be too naive to expect
the executives of a major label to trust one of the leading experts in
musical/scholarly matters.)
Cons:
* To my ears, the ensemble itself doesn't even come close to Pinnock's.
(They improved since.) The playing lacks energy, and the sort of drive
that I find necessary in much of classical music. My impression is that
they had problems with synchronizing as an ensemble; even though they
play together what should be played together, this seems to be achieved
with an effort. When I listen to a specific symphony twice, once with
each ensemble, the difference is really striking. ECO suddenly sparks
where AAM is slacking.
I suspect this sounds like a vote for Pinnock, but I wouldn't be without
all those "non-canonical" symphonies that Hogwood/Schröder include, and
the scholarly aspect of their performance is important for me. YMMV.
-Margaret
--
mikulska at silvertone dot princeton dot edu
Margaret Mikulska
> [...] Another point in
> Hogwood's favor (for me, anyway) is that in symphonies where the score
> has trumpets but no timpani, he adds them (on the assumption that they
> would have been played ad lib); this doesn't affect any of the major
> symphonies (except 32, I think), however, and Hogwood rather undermines
> the point of doing this by downplaying the brass and timpani anyway -
> his still manage to be string-dominated performances, even 38 where the
> orchestra has a tiny string section - I consider this a factor not in
> his favor (Pinnock can be wimpy in that regard too). Which brings me to
> another point in Hogwood's favor (perhaps): he tries to use per symphony
> the size of orchestra Mozart is likely to have had - so it's sometimes
> very small, sometimes (Paris) very big. [...]
At the risk of repeating myself, I'd like to add that such decisions
were Zaslaw's (or at least suggested by him), based on his research -
not purely artistic decisions of Hogwood or Schröder. For instance,
trumpets and timpani in those times "went together" - you can hardly
have a work involving orchestra from those times with ones but not the
others. If a set of parts doesn't contain both, most likely one part
was lost. Furthermore, the same work could be performed with or without
the trumpets/timpani parts, depending on the occasion. Not only
symphonies and concertos, but also masses could be performed either way:
for instance, the same mass would be performed with the "church trio" (2
violins & b.c.) only on a regular day, but with trumpets & timpani added
on a feast day. (There is at least one example of a set of parts for a
short mass by Mozart with t&t parts (and possibly some more
instruments), whose wrapper says "Missa brevis et solemnis", probably in
Leopold's hand: this may seem a contradiction, but the mass was "brevis"
because it was short and not divided into several separate arieas,
choruses, etc., and at the same time it was "solemnis" because of the
orchestration, and it was t&t parts that made it solemnis.)
Similarly, varying the size of the orchestra was based on scholarly
research: work were written for specific occasions, specific performers,
specific venues, and composers took all that into account. In Paris,
Mozart had a big orchestra at his disposal, so he wrote a work that
sounds better when performed with a larger ensemble. In Salzburg, he
wouldn't have so many players.
Dana Hill
from someone who just got the set from Canada. They wrote that the label
"cut every corner on the packaging" and that the notes appear to be
photocopies. If that makes a difference to you then beware.
I have the Hogwood set, and although I am a fan of Hogwood (as can be seen
on my website) whose opinion might be seen by some as biased, I can say
objectively that the Hogwood set, by sheer virtue of it's size, is
remarkably comprehensive. Alternate versions and unnumbered symphonies
abound. Sadly, I suspect that the liner notes to the reissued 19CD box do
not include the original essays that accompanied the full-price issues which
were 3-CD sets in several volumes. There are essays in the 19CD box. I
just would think they'd be longer. Someone else could probably confirm this
as I don't have the original CD issues.
Nevertheless, if you have the opportunity to get the Hogwood set for less
than $50 I would say snap it up, even if you later buy the Pinnock.
Dana Hill
Gainesville, Florida
My photography Websites:
http://www.danajohnhill.com
http://www.tinybadpictures.com
"Rob Taylor" <rta...@netmail.net> wrote in message
news:h294pug97vgnj1jl0...@4ax.com...
> I noticed the $25 Pinnock set from HMV.com is back in stock -- but
> also have an opportunity to buy Hogwood's complete Mozart symphonies
> from a private party for about the same price. Any opinions regarding
> a clear-cut choice, or six-to-one...?
>
> R. Taylor
Marc Perman
"Dana Hill" <johns...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:amv9ba$rv2$1...@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
> Although I do not have the Pinnock set, I read a comment on
another board
> from someone who just got the set from Canada. They wrote that
the label
> "cut every corner on the packaging" and that the notes appear to
be
> photocopies. If that makes a difference to you then beware.
Nonsense. The packaging is of the sturdy, slim-line variety, with
a photo of a lovely bridge on the cover (Salzburg?) and the
individual sleeves are of decent density. The booklet is 56 pages
and printed on fine, glossy stock. The cover of the box doesn't
hinge to the bottom but rather lifts off, as does DG's Canada-only
set of Kubelik's Mahler cycle. A&B got this to me within a week
of ordering for $42 Can. including shipping. Bravo Universal
Canada!
Marc Perman
Alan Watkins
so.
I think in principle trumpets and timpani went together but I imagine
that in many parts of the world both were recruited from the military
(particularly the timpani) and if they weren't available they didn't
appear. I strongly suspect that the absence of timp parts was simply
that they were ad lib: I am not an expert on Europe but certainly in
England at that time, all percussion (snare or timpani) was taught by
ROTE in the military, not by notation. That might have been different
in Europe but I doubt it. UK military snare did not teach by notation
until well into the last century.
I think she is right in saying that Mozart and others would have
written for available players but I don't think we have good evidence
for including timps apart from the presence of the trumpets. It was
only comparitively recently that we discovered the absence of timpani
in some movements of the Esterhazy symphonies was due to the fact that
the bassoon player doubled on the timps.
The timpani were not an art form in those days and it could easily be
that in at least some of the Mozart orchestras it was a doubled
instrument.
For me personally Mozart and the timpani are a curious enigma. I feel
the symphonies have an "add on" effect to them whereas the operas are
real writing.
At no time, however, in my opinion did he approach the inventiveness
of Haydn for this instrument.
To include timpani of this period and not to hear them properly (for
whatever reason, possibly recording deficiency) seems nonsense because
everyone must remember that in that period there was not the choice of
mallet available. The odds are they would have been wooden or leather
and you most CERTAINLY hear those, even if you don't like the sound.
And there we plunge into the "authentic minefield".
Alan M. Watkins
Gerrit Stolte
wrote:
>that they were ad lib: I am not an expert on Europe but certainly in
>England
The one in Asia?
Gerrit
W. J. McCutcheon
Marc Perman <mper...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8P4l9.18982$0H1.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
-- Bill McCutcheon