Anyone else an afficianado of these lovely works?
I just purchased a gorgeous boxed LP set of the John O'Connor recordings. But i have various versions of the concerti, 2 and 3 being my favourite.
I like:
1. his "divine passsagework"(Liszt's words!)
2. Pompous(in a good way- with a nod to Peter Conole ;))tuttis
3. Just the gentleness and sometimes sadness of those epic, leisurely opening movements.
4. the mad build-ups to some of the first movt tuttis.
Listening to my old (Rare Recorded editions) Lp of Frank Merrick, the instigator of the Field revival, playing at 2/3 speed the first movt of number 4, was so moving. More wrong notes than in any other recording I own; but what you think he did for Field(he did a performing edition). This is a particuarly poignant, heavy, sad movt anyway, but this nearly brought tears to my eyes.
More upbeat(and technically competent, nay brilliant) are good old Felicja Blumenthal(in No.2) and Rena Kyriakou(in No.3); and, of course, Benjamin Frith, on Naxos.
For the connoisseur of the curiosity, No 5. has a storm in it, complete with bells and GONG :oand Field also wrote a version for TWO pianos and orchestra, though I don't think it has been recorded.
Anyway, which are people's favourite Field PCs and recordings; or indeed, the Nocturnes.
Steve
I have Ogden in 2 & 3, and O'Conor (IIRC) in 4 & 6. Sadly, I haven't continued to expand my Field collection. I actually consider the 4th to be his overall best concerto, although most "authorities" plump for #2 (which is the only one that isn't in E-flat or C Major/Minor).
Not so long ago I replaced my old LPs and bought for less than £15 the Chandos 4-CD box set of all Field's concertos, including two divertissements, a rondeau, the orchestrated nocturne #16 and a quintetto. Very good playing by the Field specialist Míceál O'Rourke and the London Mozart Players conducted by Matthias Bamert.
The concertos are all very charming. The 2nd is perhaps his best. We have mentioned Field in the topic "Stunning piano concerto openings".
Talking about John Field, I'm very fond of his nocturnes. I have the Chandos 2-disc set by Míceál O'Rourke. But I also have a 2-CD set (again Chandos, again Míceál O'Rourke) of "Piano Works" including his 3 piano sonatas op. 1, but these works are very simple, if not childish. Not amazing as these are his first published works. But the other works are lovely too.
Field is a fine composer, but isn't he surpassed by the more unsung William Sterndale Bennett? Bennett is of a later generation, that's true. What is your opinion?
I gather John Field was sent out to tour Europe by Clementi to demonstrate the latter's pianos. He seems to have finished up in Russia where he died. I certainly enjoy his concertos but have to agree that some of William Sterndale Bennett's were even better, especially No 4.
Beg pardon, guys. I checked my CDs and I have the O'Rourke PC 4 & 6, not the O'Conor. Oh, well, I just remembered it was O'somebody. :D
I love the O'Rourke series! I think he is an excellent pianist and Chandos does a superb job with the production of the concertos. I personally can't choose which is my favorite as I love them all, but if I had to live with just one it would probably be #2.
Kevin
#2 seems to be the one everyone likes the best, but, as I said, I prefer the 4th. I'm actually rather fond of #3 as well. #2 is alright, but it seem to be a little too formulaic for my taste.
Peter poses the question of whether Sterndale Bennett is a better composer that Field. Such comparisons are invidious, of course, and especially unreliable when they are of different generations as they are in this case. So, all I'd say is that my preference is for Field. For all that Bennett is undoubtedly a better technical composer, there's a freshness and individuality to Field's music which I find lacking from much of Bennett's work. A couple of early overtures aside, most of Bennett is so heavily influenced by Mendelssohn that Bennett's own voice is masked. Field's music often (not always I'll admit) has quite a strong character and, if the piano writing sometimes brings to mind Chopin, the Pole is the imitator.
After what you say Mark, I'm going to re-listen to my Naxos set of all Field's piano concertos. I think I may have been a little bit harsh on him. I still think that Bennett's No 4 was the finest concerto by a composer from the British Isles to emerge in the first half of the 19th century. In fact I'll stick my neck out and say that in this one work he beat his friend and mentor, Mendelssohn, at his own game! ;D
mark, couldnt agree more. There is freshness and total individuality in Field. I could nearly always tell its him, for many reasons. he is one of those composers who has an instantly recogniseable style; and, yes, of course Chopin imitated him(later) both in his mellifluous and spiritually beautiful passagework, and, in the (slower) Nocturnes. Though I like some of the Mozart PCs, and they are often beautiful, I PREFER Field; I never find he goes through the motions like M. sometimes does(controversial :)); as do others of the very early/late classical piano concerto writing school(This is only a personal opinion! Beware!:))
Steve
Wow Steve... Field and Mozart. Two different generations. I think they are incomparable, especially if we restrict ourselves to the late Mozart PCs. How Mozart opens and develops his C minor concerto KV 491 (1786) is of such a high, if not heavenly level, and full of depth. With all respect and IMHO, Field never comes even close to that. But... yes, it's all a matter of personal taste.
However, I'm very fond of Field, and I fully agree with Mark that Field's music shows a strong individuality and has character. Field doesn't copy music of others.
Field is the "founding father" of the nocturne. His nocturnes are gorgeous and give the listener much pleasure, but... they are not of the same level Chopin reached in his nocturnes. Indeed, this is my personal and perhaps controversial opinion...But then, I don't think Chopin could have given us his magical nocturnes without a John Field.
_____________________________________________________________________
After reading this again, I think I've been a bit unfair. What matters is what you like to hear and a preference is based upon personal taste. If you ask me, what do you prefer to listen to, Mozart's KV 491 or Hummel's op. 85, or Field's 2nd, I know what to answer. Hummel's op. 89 ;D
Sorry, Peter; yes, Mozart obviously slightly earlier generation!
Was Hummel the same generation as Mozart?!:) :)
Seriously, Peter, shall listen to a bit more Hummel
Currently enmeshed in Novak, of which more anon
Steve B
Quote from: Steve B on Thursday 16 July 2009, 15:49Was Hummel the same generation as Mozart?!:) :)
No, Steve. Hummel studied with Mozart shortly before the latter's death. He was a lad of 12-13 at the time. Hummel was a bit younger than Beethoven, actually.
I've now had a Field Day listening again to all five of Field's concertos and have decide that nos 5 & 6 are my favourites, being rather more drammatic than the earlier ones. However, compared to some of the music written later on in the century, Field's lightning strike might be thought of as being more of a storm in a teapot. ;D
I've yet to get around to Field's piano concertos. I'm a big fan of his Nocturnes, but for some reason have yet to pick up the concertos.