Edwin Fischer playing Beethoven

Posted by: u5227470736789439 on 01 January 2008

Edwin Fischer playing Beethoven

Edwin Fischer is one of those elusive pianists whose despairingly few recordings show that on his day he was a peerless poet, and the seemingly the least self-conscious or self-interested of pianists. His mistakes are not taken away with countless takes or carefully tailored phrasing, and signs of strain sometimes show through without diminishing the impact of his view of the sweeping vistas he always uncovers in the music.

His Mozart recordings are all treasurable. Uniquely, and seemingly artless in their complete characterisation of the music. Often they find more open lightness in the music than others, though it is always tinted with the sense that there is some deep sorrow inherent in the music. Very strange mixture, and how is it so convincingly conveyed? If I could answer that question then I would not be posing the question!

Not all that many pianists are equally convincing in Beethoven and Mozart. Fischer is an exception. He fully understood the different rhetorical and expressive worlds these two giants occupied musically. His Bach is perhaps the most satisfying performed on the piano as well, and his efforts in Schubert and Brahms indeed show a comprehensive range of understanding in style and heart! What he chose to perform he performed always at the highest level, though his repertoire was actually all-embracing. He could play the Rite Of Spring at the piano entirely convincingly for pupils though never in public! And played all the new music of his day in his earlier career, when he had a cast iron technique to match his musical vision. Eventually he withdrew from concert giving for health reasons, longer before he died.

But there are three recordings of Fischer which rank among my favourites, and all three still out nearly sixty years after being recorded.

The pairing of the Third Piano Concerto in C Minor and the Fourth in G recorded the same week in 1953 with the Philharmonia - on Testament - somehow have a magic balance of the clear-sighted honesty and the completely poetic, which is beyond analysis. He never was an enthusiastic recording artist, and sometimes things did not go well. But here he seems to have relaxed to the task, so much so that the results both sound like concert performances, and yet have almost no slips!

The best of all perhaps, though the music does not allow for much poetry [in other hands!], is the Emperor Concerto, which was recorded a couple of years earlier with the Philharmonia under Wilhelm Furtwangler. Here Fischer entirely engages with the extra-ordinary energy of the first movement without ever making it hard toned or over-driven though his tempi are decidedly brisk! Furtwangler admired Fischer the musician, and the two had been friends for a good thirty years, and for once Furtwangler provides as guileless a rendering of the orchestral part as Fischer demands in his way with the solo. It is fascinating to listen to Furtwangler abandon his own high-flown - often exaggerated - way with Beethoven, and fine it down to a remarkably selfless and energetic adoption of Fischer's seemingly more natural and simpler way. I say seeming as the way Fischer works is with a tremendous flexibility of phrase, rather than broad swings in the basic tempo! It is actually very subtle, and lithe.

The masterstroke in this performance, however is the slow movement, where if ever Beethoven exalts in his music it is here. Fischer almost seems to integrate his tone entirely into the accompaniment of the sounds of the orchestra, so that when the Finale arrives the piano flourish that launches the new music takes on a joy unsurpassed in any recording of the work I know. This launch is managed without fireworks, but merely an expressive change of colour from the piano, something Fischer was a master at and it remains impossible to entirely explain.

Whatever other recordings you have of these works, please consider adding these, for the sort of insight never likely to be repeated on records, simply because that un-self-conscious style of performance where details [largely] take care of themselves, and the swing of the music is all, has gone completely from the modern style of technically perfect performance, fashionable today.

The Emperor Concerto is out on EMI References [historical] CD currently.

ATB from George
Posted on: 15 January 2008 by u5227470736789439
Because of the kindness of a Forum member, today I have listened to Edwin Fisher's extrememly rare recording of Bach's Ich ruf zu dir, Herr Jesy Christ in Busoni's arrangement for piano. I last listened to this recording in about 1990, and always hoped I might come across it again eventually.

This had just come out on a big Naxos issue of recordings by great pianists, and what is striking is the difference between Fischer and every other example of the old "grand" style of piano playing is that Fischer is the exact opposite of a showman. In fact the last thing you notice is the playing as such! Everything about his playing takes you into the heart of the music.

In this Bach he never plays more than Mezzo Piano, never crushes a phrase into a small space, never distorts the pulse with a mannered halt - "now listen to this" sort of way - but miraculously deepens to tone, and "places" everything with a rhythmic peotry that defies anyone to carp about the complete absense [in this case in Bach] of Historically Informed Performance practice! If you want to carp about that, then ignore Fischer. His style is strongly heart-felt expressive music making, but a self-effacing one at the same time. A rare mix, indeed. Every fibre is given over to bringing the music's reason and message ...

I think that is why he was equally at home in the very different musical worlds of Bach, Mozart, Beehoven, Schubert, and Brahms, and why in his early career he was regarded as one the great exponents of the contemporary music of his day. He seems to find the expresive style for each, which is of course differnt in every case, even between the pieces by an individual composer. this is the opposite of autopilote, technically perfect but inexpressive music making.

In latter days he became less adept at tackling the really severe technical demands of the difficult music he played so well in his young days, but that aspect does not spoil what he allowed the gramophone to capture, though the repertoire actually looks quite conservative in terms of his recordings ...

George
Posted on: 18 January 2008 by droodzilla
If anyone's interested, the set's available on Amazon here:

A-Z of Pianists

4CDs of historical recordings, and an 800+ page booklet about the pianists (biogs, key recordings, critical reception). Kudos to Naxos for the effort they've put into this fascinating collection. I've listened to CDs 1 and 2 a couple of times, and CD3 has just triggered a Scarlatti thread. Overall it's a tad Liszt heavy for me, but I'm really enjoying the opportunity to explore the repertoire of what is probably my favourite solo musical instrument.

George's description pretty much nails Fischer's approach. I'm not sure how it's possible for a pianist to be both self-effacing, and individual, but Fischer seems to manage it.

The only thing I (maybe) take issue with in George's post is this:
quote:
He seems to find the expresive style for each, which is of course differnt in every case, even between the pieces by an individual composer. this is the opposite of autopilote, technically perfect but inexpressive music making.

Which appears to set up a false either/or (expressive style vs technical perfection) - why can't we have both? But this made me think about what we mean by a technically perfect performance and the extent to which achieving this objective is more about servicing the ego of the performer, rather than the "needs" of the music. If - as I suspect - a performer needs to be self-effacing to achieve the latter, can he or she really attain the former?

Answers on my desk by 10am tomorrow, please!
Posted on: 21 January 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Droo!

In a nutshell, it sees that the pursuit of technical perfection as an aim and not a servant, is invariably a drain of the possible energy a human performer can give to uncovering the music's heart.

Even the wonderfully virtuosic Solomon Cutner, never put safety and "guaranteed" technical perfection in front of the drive, swing, and the sweet emotion of music!

If you can suggest an artist who managed technical perfection with profound spirituality, then I shall be glad to acquaint myself with his or her performances!

George
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by droodzilla
Agreed George, there's certainly a tension between servicing the performer's ego and serving the needs of the music.

Since you ask though, how about Rachel Podger - I know you like her Bach. She's no technical slouch, that's for sure, and she seems to do a fine job of getting to the heart of the music.

In a similar vein is ther anything really wrong with overdubbing great live recordings to, as it were, get the best of both worlds - the excitement and spontaneity of a good live recording with the "accuracy" of the studio? I'm assuming the technology is now good enough for us not to be able to detect the join (or for it not to be glaringly obvious at least).

If we object to such procedures, what's the basis of our concern? Is it because we think it's cheating, or is there something intrinsically valuable about these mistakes made in the heat of live performance? And how can that be in the light of our duty to honour the music, or the composer's intentions?

I have no firm views on these issues buit they're interesting to think about.
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by u5227470736789439
I think that we freqequently miss the actual edit, but the tension that runs through an unimpeded continuous performance is terribly easy to loose, and is a question of extremely small nuances of tone, volume, and precise rhythmic placing and style over a sustained period of playing, in an architectural manner, that builds and releases tension over entire movements, even whole pieces on occasion ...

Not things that can easily be preserved when editing things together, even if the result sounds convincing, it is at a subconscious level, quite lacking continuity!

I would be happy to see "unedited live recording" in preference to even the most minimal of rescue editing. I would say that if the performance is so flawed that it needs editing it is unworthy of release in recorded form! Either leave the recording on the shelf, or remake it again when things are going better. There are some famous cases of recordings that were left on the shelf, for what now seem quite small blemishes. Nowadays these would be edited intoshape, and have been none the better for it!

Most 78 recordings have little fluffs here and there, but I still find them preferable to the technical perfection that editing allows!

Initially tape editing was regarded as a possible way to "rescue" a piece of recording. I think it has turned into the most ruinous and most musically destructive aspect of the modern recording industry. Not least those who mainly listen to records can get a very warped idea of what is really possible! Thus performers in the concert hall have become careful! Whereas in the old days a recording attempted to mimic the [sometimes wild] live concert, now live concerts are trying to mimic the sterile, technically perfected, studio atmosphere! This is the catastrophy that has followed the editing phenomenon, and criticism of the odd technical fluff in much too large a degree. The pursuit of perfection in the mechanical aspects is mistaken. Of course there must be a great technical address, but this is the starting point in creating great music making!

As for Rachel Podger. Yep she can play! I doubt there was any need to edit her recordings! And I would suspect that her tapings may be very satisfying. I have only ever heard her live! Hardly a flaw in almost two hours of music! But what musical swing and power!!!

George
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by Ian G.
George,

Apropo of nothing really, but this thread has prompted me to dig out an LP of these 3rd and 4th piano concertos by Kempff/BPO/Leitner - a car-boot sale item which never got played too much for some reason. Let's see if it stays near the top of the oft played pile.

Again OT but I realised at the weekend that I enjoy the concerto format of music best of all classical forms. Whether it is piano, violin, cello or some other concerto the combination of a lead instrument interacting with the orchestra really holds my interest.

Ian
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Ian,

This is a very strange thread! Off-topic is fine! Mozart probably wrote the most compelling concertos. Simply greater than Beethoven's and Brahm's for example, because he so understood the essential difference between the roles of soloist and orchestra. Not exactly a battle, but certainly a way of building musical tension and power, which can be released in a new vista - a new vision entirely than that which could be acheived either with a solo instrument alone, or with an orchestra without.

More contentious might be my view that Haydn wrote the greatest symphonies in the eighteenth century, and if you want to find your way into concertos, you have taken the best route with WA Mozart! And when you want to really find out the glories of the Symphony, then start on Haydn! Only a suggestion for you, but perhaps one wou would enjoy, for the variety it brings.

Incidentally my critiism of most post Mozartian Concertos, is that they veer towards being Symphonies [with obligatto soloist!] in weight and style, and are nothing like a subtle as those Mozart wrote in the handling of the relationship between orchestra and soloist!

George
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by Ian G.
Ah, now I remember why I didn't play this Kempff LP much - it is a bit wrecked - never mind it was in a charity sale.

I've taken a punt on the Fischer Emperor as it is available at a keen price on the Amazon marketplace. The only other recording I have of that is again an old LP from Ashkenazy/Solti which has never much moved the hairs on my neck.

I know we agree on WA M.'s wonderful concertos even the clarinet concerto is a delight which surprised me a lot as I didn't expect to enjoy it so much.

As for more modern concertos I do return again and again to J. du Pre/Barbirolli's Elgar cello concerto - that one does keep my neck hairs' attention.

I should follow your hint and explore Haydn's Symphonies - I am shamefully ignorant of them and have neglected them in favour of the other big names like Mozart, Beethoven, Sibelius & Tschaikovsky.

Ian
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by u5227470736789439
I am not saying that no later concertos managed that fine balance Mozart so often achieved in his concertos. Elgar's Cello Concerto manages this rather well. Better than Dvorak's for example where for reasons that defy too much thought, he gives the most beautiful passage in the whole work to the French Horn Soloist! What the Cello Soloist is to do with the tune after that is something not so easily answered!

If you enjoy the Beethoven Symphonies, then Haydn will appeal for sure! Not that they are so very like Beethoven's, but that it is clear where Beethoven learned his lessons! Haydn actually was glad enough to loose the young Beethoven as a pupil! Beethoven's immense and great slow introductions are prefigured in Haydn ... In fact almost every device and formal structure Beethoven uses in his are derived from what Haydn had so brilliantly brought to an early perfection of balance between form and expression. The content is as different as Handel and Bach, though Haydn is much more like Handel than Beethoven is like Bach!

Perhaps we should start a new Thread on Haydn Symphonies? George
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by Ian G.
Just found this this nice Haydn thread from last year and so I'll check it out. Seems everyone has something good to say about Haydn. I'm stunned he wrote over 100 symphonies Eek

I'll pop the Haydn Cello concerto on once Elgar is finished - it is buried as yet unheard in the Complete EMI recordings from J du Pre - a 17 CD set which was the bargain of 2007.

Ian
Posted on: 24 January 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Ian,

That link to Mr Underhill's Thread is splendid. I had completely forgotten about it!

On topic [within the context of the title of this thread at least!] Edwin Fischer recorded a performance of one of the Piano Concertos Haydn wrote.

Mozart Concerto No 25 in C with Haydn Concerto in D. Edwin Fischer with the Philhrmonia [Joseph Kripps] and and VPO [no conductor], respectively.

On APR [Apian Recordings] in absolutely splendid transfers.



This is "Volume Three" of three containing Fischer's Mozart Concerto recordings for HMV between 1933 and 1947. Volune One contains the D Minor with the LPO with no conductor [1933], and the E Flat, No, 22, with the LPO and Barbirolli [1937], and Volume Two: No. 17 with the Fischer Chamber Orch - an ad-hoc group from the BPO - [1937], paired with the C Minor, No. 24, with the LPO under Lawrence Collingwood [1937]. These are among the best Mozart Piano Concerto recordings yet made, and in such fine transfers that most people will easily forget the sonics as such. The CDs are filled out with some wonderful solo rarities from Fischer, and an only very rarely performed Rondo for Piano and Orchestra. A sublime piece.

www.aprrecordings.co.uk

George
Posted on: 24 January 2008 by Ian G.
George,

I bought those APR recordings some time back after you pointed them out to us, but I forgot again that there was a Haydn piece tacked onto all the Mozart. Must dig it out tonight, thanks for the reminder :-)

Ian
Posted on: 24 January 2008 by u5227470736789439
Considering the turn towards Haydn, I have a probably unique taping of the [1938] 78s recorded by Fischer of Haydn's London Symphony which has a very special place in the great recordings of this work for me.

The transfer is rough, but the reading is sublime. The band consists of five first violins, four seconds, four violas, three cellos, two basses, and single winds. Described on the records as the Edwin Fischer Chamber Orchestra, his regular Berlin band was actually hand picked from the BPO. I imagine that this phenomenal group is one and the same. They knew him so well from his Mozart Concerto performances that there is the feeling of a great regular chamber orchestra, though the style could hardly be more contrasted with a modern chamber group like the Englsih Chamber Orchestra.

The result is surprisingly muscular. Twee is definately not the word! But there is also a subtlety that defies description here. The same performers recorded Fischer's arrangement for strings of the Six part Ricecare from Bach's Musical Offering a few years earlier, with astounding expressivity.

Fischer fully understood the difference between Mozart and Haydn. Eugen Jochum summed this up as the difference between the rusticity of a rural mind, taking joy from natural suroundings, and the urban professional mind, who enjoys the polite society found in the coffee house. Both are subtle, though one is more subtle on the surface!

I wish someone would issue this old recording as it really points foward to the likes of Nicholas Harnoncourt, fifty years before its time, in its style!

George

PS: Dear Ian, When you dig this Haydn Concerto out, you will see without question why Mozart is regarded as the greater composer of Concerti! But it is great fun, and gets a heck of a gripping performance with Fischer! I also have Leif Ove Andsnes [Norweigian] playing this concerto, and lets just say I prefer Fischer by a good margin! The recording is not so successfully transfered as the Mozart performances, sadly.
Posted on: 24 January 2008 by Noye's Fludde
quote:
Originally posted by GFFJ:


Incidentally my critiism of most post Mozartian Concertos, is that they veer towards being Symphonies [with obligatto soloist!] in weight and style, and are nothing like a subtle as those Mozart wrote in the handling of the relationship between orchestra and soloist!





The first 18th century composer I became interested in was indeed Haydn. The symphonies are a treasure trove of musical enlightenment and more to the point, they are undiluted, rollicking good fun.


I think, however, that you do Mozart a disfavor by singling out his piano concertos, for Mozart was a master of all music forms he tackled with the possible exception of the Lied.


From my standpoint, I see the differences between the two composers as the dichotomy between two distinct personalities.


..First, Pappa Haydn, the gruff simplistic genial unpretentious man who lived to a ripe old age. In Haydn's works, we have the music of sanity, contentment, and calm order. The emotions are there, but they are cooled by 18th century reason. Perhaps this is where Mozart found himself in his early years,... it is a style and mood that would change dramatically throughout his brief career , in my opinion...


As I'm sure your aware, Mozarts final half dozen symphonies have no parallel in Western Art. They are at once brilliantly constructed and harmonically daring. Above all, these are passionate operatic outpourings of the human soul. This music is less discrete, more emotionally complex and conflicted than that of Haydn. Mozart led a much more turbulent life. He was forced to grow up too early, at first prodded to maturity by the demands of an overly controlling father and then by the impoverished circumstances of his life. It is sobering when you think i of the burnished golden ineffable strains of the adagio of the Symphony in E-Flat Major and many of the majestic moments in the Magic Flute were written by a young man...


"After the splendors of Mozart had been revealed to me by Mahler, my understanding of the master grew ever more profound and I drew knowledge from even an occasional weakness or a daring innovation in the reproduction of his works......The playful manner of the operatic and concert performances had become unbearable to me. I even preffered the occasional alternatives: an academic dryness. Gradually, I had begun to realize Mozart's strength and greatness behind his moderate forms, expressions, and means, and I sensed with all due reverence and modesty that I had gained access to his soul"


Bruno Walter from liner notes to Mozart CBS recording of Symphonies #38 and 40...



D
Posted on: 24 January 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Noah,

I think you mistake my enthusiasm for Mozart's Concertos for a lack of enthusiasm for his other music. If you can tell me who wrote greater operas than WA M, then I shall soon look into them!

George
Posted on: 25 January 2008 by Noye's Fludde
quote:
Originally posted by GFFJ:
Dear Noah,

I think you mistake my enthusiasm for Mozart's Concertos for a lack of enthusiasm for his other music. If you can tell me who wrote greater operas than WA M, then I shall soon look into them!

George




......................... Smile
Posted on: 25 January 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Noah,

It is a funny one, because I tend to advocate the nether by-ways of great music, slightly neglected! Mozart needs no advocacy from me, of course, and for me to praise the beauties of say the Linzer Symphony is certainly redundant. But if I can get someone to find the joys of the much less frequently known great symphonies of Haydn, I think I might be making a contribition!

I am not the only person who considers that some of Haydn's many symphonies really do have a claim to be considered among the greatest symphonies before Beethoven, but it all remains opinion, and hardly worth an argument! I know for example that Bruno Walter revered Mozart above all others, but there are others of similar stuture to Walter, who found their favourites were to be found in Haydn's output.

What is probably not open to doubt is that in his operas and concertos, Haydn's talents did not shine as Mozart's did, but in terms of his Masses, Piano Sonatas, String Quartets, and Symphonies, then Haydn's genius is shown as being truly great. I actually do not see much point in comparisons as such, for the reason of "apples and oranges" but certainly if someone enjoys Mozart's music then Haydn's will almost certainly also appeal.

George
Posted on: 30 January 2008 by Ian G.


Back on topic - George is right - this is very fine indeed. Of course the raw material is full of achingly beautiful passages, much of it, I guess, familiar to many of us. The balance between orchestra and piano is delicately maintained and as a whole the music keeps your attention right from the beginning.

What more do you want ? Fantastic music, beautifully delivered for less than the cost of a throwaway mains cord!

Thanks George.

Ian
Posted on: 30 January 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Ian,

This is so kind. I have perhaps half a dozen artists whom I revere because they lay bare the music without reference at all to their own self apponted immportance. Edwin Fischer, Clara Haskil, Adolf Busch, Adrian Boult, Artur Grumiaux, David Oistrack, Pierre Fournier, Maurice Gendron, and some others, plus, strange as it may sound, Otto Klemperer, who fully understood his own significance, but whose music making is completely lacking in any expression not directly stemming from the music.

These artists are rarely the easiest to appreciate in a one off sort of way, but after a while you realise the huge artistsic and even personal integrity which underpins their lives and work. And their work is always deeply expressive, and for me at least deeply moving.

George

PS: Dear Ian, would be so kind as to send me an email. My address is in my profile, and I have lost yours. I have a new email address ...
Posted on: 30 January 2008 by Ian G.
OT again (but hey, no one is watching in here - they're all arguing about angels on pinheads in the neighbouring room). Funny you mention Boult - as a seat-of-the-pants dilitente in things classical I have enjoyed every recording I've heard of Adrian Boult's. He (or his orchestra's) sheer gusto in attacking some of the music is marvellous - I'm thinking of some of the Elgar in particular. I'd love to have seen him live.
Posted on: 30 January 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Ian,

I will post a youtube of Boult and Oistrack in Beethoven's Violin Concerto here a bit later.

It is a surprise! Boult, very correct looking, actually looks immensely dispassionate! But soloists from Oistrack, Schnabel, Ferrier, Hess, Rostropovich, ... , [actually an encyclopoedia of the greatest artists from 1920 to 1975] always viewed a collaboration with him as something to relish.

What is fascinating is to read, and what will never show in a film is that everything came from Boult's face - his expression. The technical stuff came off the ever lucid, mobile, sprung baton, but the expression came in his eyes! If he was looking for a big build in tension he used to go pink from the neck up, and as one leading LPO player said, "he could practically foam at the mouth!"

None of this is visble in films of the day, or even from behind in his rock steady stance on the Podium!

George

Beethoven Violin Concerto, Third Movement: Oistrack/LPO/Boult 1968 in RAH
Posted on: 30 January 2008 by Ian G.
Thanks for that - quite amazing. It made me laugh out loud - it is almost as if it was the wrong soundtrack to the film! I guess the players had learnt what was wanted in rehersal!
(email sent - my spare email address is in my profile too)
Ian
Posted on: 30 January 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Ian,

It is very badly out of sync. Boult tended to be quite in front of the actual beat, as did Toscanini, and Furtwnagler, and the film makes this worse by making the sound even later - watch Oistrack to see how his bowing fits the actual notes! But there is no doubt that the Soloist is being completely supported. Oistrack is an angel of violin!

George
Posted on: 30 January 2008 by Ian G.
It wasn't the sync problems which made me laugh out loud it was the difference in impact and gusto (to repeat myself) which is so incongruous with Boult's kinetic reserve - exactly as you said, but not at all as I had imagined.

Ian
Posted on: 30 January 2008 by u5227470736789439
Boult had a way of regulating tension in a completely architectural way, so that with hindsight you have a clear idea where the climax of any given piece is. There is always one most important climax [emtional or even dynamic] in every piece, and Boult unerringly used to find it, even whilst bringing out the foothills as well, but proportioning them!

But how he conveyed this to his orchestra is a mystery that is probably only partially understood even by his players. They could not play any other way when he was on the Podium. It was like a spell, or so I was told by the two bass players I know, who played in Boult's orchestra!

The film shows the paradox beautifully!

You have a reply email!

George