Listening Fatigue

Yes indeed.  But I think a quick scan of the number of posters and the range of issues raised by them shows us that it is not in such a sad state these last eight days or so than previously, don't you think?

On the point of this thread, I don't get to play anything so many time that I feel "fatigued".  I feel spoilt for choice, there I so many favourites to go back to, and so many new works to discover that I feel like a kid in a candy store.  And I'm nearly an old man, so I've a lot to pack into my time left in this mortal coil!

Vic.

Vic, I told you so...There was no need.

Back to our "fatigue". Chris, you're right, to a great extent. As an avid collector, I purchase a lot of new recordings of well-known works and I feel, most of the time, that there is something quite new along with the familiar. However, this "new" elements make the difference to find out that there is no definitive comprehension or final perception of a work, even of the simplest or the smallest ones.

Few examples of my latest purchases: a) The Scherzo of Sibelius' 1st Symphony, in the new SACD recording by Vanska, on BIS (with the Minnesota Orch.): It's the fastest, almost one minute faster vis a vis other more standard performances. However, it's very clean, almost transparent (for the first time, I heard so clearly the harp's short passages at the coda) and quite convincing.

b) The second movement of the 3rd Piano Trio by Schumann, in the new stunning recording, on Audite (SACD), with the Swiss Piano Trio. For the first time, the dynamics are so clearly observed and the musical line of the cello is so eloquently revealed along with the other two instruments.

c) The Seven Bagatelles, op.33 by Beethoven with Olga Pashchenko, on Fuga Libera, performed on a rare fortepiano by Conrad Graf of 1826. Although I have so many recordings, some on fortepiano too, this one sounds as I almost have never heard them, mostly thanks to the instrument and the impressive recording.

Listening to multiple recordings of very different approaches of the same work(s) can give you enough food for thought.

Finally, the issue of discipline and of a specific program (Beethoven in f minor, Haydn in E flat or works written in f sharp minor and so on) can always give you enough "homework", opening new ways of listening to familiar works.

Parla

Parla, you are incorrigible!!!

You must have the last word.    And I'm going to let you have it (with the above comment).  I don't agree with you of course, but you can have the last word on the subject.  And please, please make the above the very last word on it!

I loved the rest of your post, by the way.  Thank you.

Vic.

Vic and Parla in a tree.

K.I.S.S.I.N.G.

Get a room you two. You are clearly made for each other.

Offtopic:

Again we agree! Apart from anything else, this is the order Mahler wanted.

I find having the scherzo arrive to disrupt the serenity of the andante to be very effective. Regarding the question of keys (as though GM was even a stickler for such things), the semitone drop from the scherzo’s A minor to the finale’s G# major opening chord is very effective as an unsettling device. (Yes, the first note of the finale is C but the chord is G#, and the music sounds in G# for the first 8 bars up to the double lines.)

Oh God, it's another M6 debate :rolls eyes:

Which reminds me, I read an interview with Kent Nagano (link below) in which he said he doesn't play the Bruckner 9 finale, because he's not convinced it's authentic. What he likes to do is turn the torso into a four-movement symphony by putting a movement by a different composer before the Adagio. How the hell is that a more acceptable option? 

http://www.scena.org/lsm/sm16-4/sm16-4_nagano-bruckner_en.html