@davidtatro7457

1 year ago

Hmmm.... I am all for experimenting and trying things and pushing against the limits and trying new approaches. So total respect for that, and for your generally beautiful playing. But in this case, l don't think you've sold the idea. If anything, l think it's better to go the other way and have a very delayed and crisp16th note pickup to a very pompous and deliberate triplet. It sets the entire stage for the nobility written into the piece. And l think the entire thing must come together in the Coda of the 3rd movement when the roles are exchanged and the strings are doing triplets against the solo part's very crisp eighth note and dotted rhythm melody. I think the Coda section alone dictates how the character of the entire exposition should be developed for maximum effect.

All that said, if you feel really strongly about this interpretation, then do a full recording with an accompanist and let's all hear it in full context and see if it sells. I mean, maybe you're on to something here. I personally will keep an open mind about it.

Edit: l feel that l should also say that there are many, many pieces out there where l think there are wonderful opportunities to interpret written rhythms rather loosely for the sake of the music. I just don't think this particular piece is one of them. And for context, I'll just say that l grew up with Lindberg's recording of this, where the 16th note into the triplet sounds like 4 loose 16th notes. And l learned the entire concerto by ear from listening to him. I was literally shocked in college when l first saw the actual music and heard a couple other prominent players play the piece. And my opinion on that rhythmic interpretation took a total 180 degree turn as a result.

3 |