From: pnm@milton.u.washington.edu (John Rahn)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Villa-Lobos Piano Concertos (was Re: Villa-Lobos box set on EMI)
Summary: Piano Concerto No. 5 comparison
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:22:10 GMT
Followup-To: rec.music.classical
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Jul28.224506.17412@tellab5.tellabs.com> lampson@tellabs.com (Dave Lampson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.184012.219321@cs.cmu.edu> acid+@cs.cmu.edu (Christopher Colby) writes:
>>EMI France has reissued a 6-disc budget-priced set of Villa-Lobos
>>conducting the Orchestre National de la Radiodiffusion Francaise in the
>>following works:

     [list of works deleted]

>>
>>Unfortunately, although most of the recordings were done between 1957 and
>>1959, the whole set it in mono.

     (Actually, the recordings were made between 1954 and 1959,
      in a fairly even distribution)


>>
>>I read a rave review of this set in a recent issue of _Fanfare_, and in
>>fact it actually made the 1991 "Want List", so I decided to order.  
>
>
>I too had read a couple of good reviews of this, but opun listening
>to a couple of cuts, I found the playing to be pretty sloppy, and the 
>sonics to be generally worse than the year would indicate.
>
>I'll take this opportunity to plug a great new release of the piano 
>concertos on London.  I can frequently take or leave Villa-Lobos, but
>I was very impressed by this set.  It's a little much for one listening,
>but there is a huge amount of good material here, and repeated listenings
>are well rewarded.  Lovers of V-L's music, or modern piano concertos 
>should check this out.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>VILLA-LOBOS            Concertos #1-5                                        DDD
>Royal Philharmonic Orchestra                        GOMEZ-MARTINEZ, Miguel
>Piano                        ORTIZ, Christina
>London                                                430628-2       (2) 2:19:24
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I heartily concur in welcoming the new recording of the complete 
Piano Concertos: it is a "must have" for anyone who likes Villa-
Lobos's music, and all the more so because two of these concertos 
(nos. 3 & 4) have never been recorded before. And the quality of the
music is surprisingly strong for a composer who is reputed to have
done so poorly in the "standard" forms (symphony, concerto, etc.).

However, the juxtaposition of this laudatory notice, above, 
with the very low opinion of the EMI set titled
"Villa-Lobos par lui-meme" raises some interesting points.  It is 
quite true that the sound quality of these recordings, made between 
1954 and 1959, were substandard even in their day, and the ORTF 
Orchestra which features in many (not all) of the pieces was a ragged band at 
best.  But not only are there many works included that we are not 
likely to get new recordings of (the Choros No. 11, the Fourth 
Symphony, the Invocation to Defense of the Nation), but also the 
performances of many of the works stand up very well to more recent 
versions, if you can get past the congested sound and occasional 
sloppiness of orchestral ensemble--the rhythms and phrasing in the 
first two Bachianas Brasileiras, for instance. And even beyond the
issue of the quality of the interpretation, there is the question
of how well the composer's *text* is represented.

As Michael Round points out in an article on the Bachianas 
Brasileiras in _Tempo_, No. 169 (June 1989), pp. 34-41, the 
published scores are notorious for their inaccuracies.  This is in 
part because of the composer's hasty working methods, and in part 
due to the carelessness of his publisher, Max Eschig.  Trusting the 
scores implicitly is foolhardy, and the composer's recordings 
repeatedly reveal the sensible truth where the scores seem 
unreasonable.

The Fifth Piano Concerto is a case in point.

In general, the new recording has rather literal, stiff rhythms and 
tempos by comparison to the earlier recordings, especially the two  
of No. 1 (Ballon/Ansermet/Orchestre de la Susse Romande, London LL 77, 
now more than 35 years out-of-print; and Moreira-Lima/Fedoseyev/
Moscow Radio Orchestra, Melodiya C10-08167-68, from 1980), and the 
composer's recording of No. 5 (Felicia Blumental as soloist, 
recorded 1955).  But on closer inspection of the latter, it is 
apparent that the score is at least partly to blame: many things 
have clearly been missed out in the printing.  Two details will 
have to suffice: (1) in the first movement, there is no marking at 
the end of the orchestral introduction for a conventional slowing 
down to signal the entrance of the solo piano. Brilliant stroke of 
originality? or an omission in printing? The Ortiz recording 
follows the score literally, making a rather headlong effect; but 
in the composer's version, there is a broad rallantando, just as 
one might expect. (2) The cadenza at the end of the third movement 
has absolutely no pedal markings, and the Ortiz version, faithful to 
the score, is very dry; but again, the 1955 recording is quite 
different, in particular toward the middle of the cadenza (just 
before rehearsal-number [9]), where two upward-rushing broken 
scales release into sustained chords by means of a striking third-
pedal effect quite absent on the new recording.  Now, it's possible
that this pedalling effect was a trick added by Blumental, rather
than the composer's idea, but it does occur in his earlier piano
music, notably the piano version of Bachianas Brasileiras No. 4
(in the "Chorale" movement), and if he didn't approve, he had the
opportunity to object and didn't.  As the dedicatee of the concerto,
Blumental's editorial decisions would carry some considerable weight,
anyway.

So recorded sound quality, and even orchestral performance polish
isn't the whole story (and frankly, the RPO on the new recording
sounds underrehearsed to me--resulting not so much in missed notes as
in an overall cautiousness that reinforces the stiff literalness of 
the interpretation. I will still listen with great pleasure to the 
Ortiz in future, not only for the otherwise unavailable Concertos,
for there are many good qualities to the interpretation as well, never 
mind its vast technical superiority to the Blumental (which among 
other defects features a badly mistuned middle E on the piano--the 
note that sonorously opens each solo statement of the slow movement's
main theme--especially egregious when the right hand plays in octaves), but I 
regret the literal-mindedness of the new interpretation, and the 
failure to consult the composer's own recording to check improbable 
features of the printed score.

Jerry Kohl
pnm@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical