Mvt 1 - 00:00 Mvt 2 - 14:33 Mvt 3 - 24:51 Mvt 4 - 32:05 Trio Dali puts in a wonderful performance here - they seem to have an especially conversational way of playing (in contrast to the many excellent recordings that seem to take a more declaratory, performative approach, with Capucon probably being the best example of this). You hear it right from the beginning, with the gregarious piano and the microscopic rhythmic tug at the violin arpeggio in m.4. It’s also especially prominent in the return of the main theme in Mvt 2, where the interplay of shy counterpoint in the strings (22:02) is breathtaking, and the cello part is judged perfectly - there is no unnecessary sliding or vibrato, and the playing is nothing but sincere. Mvt 3, which often risks sounding stiff, is vibrant and beautifully textured, while Mvt 4 manages to sound both fantastic (in the sense of weird), funny, and entirely natural at the same time.
The amount of effort you put into these wonderful videos - going through a 41-minute video and changing the image of the score when necessary, and especially the work put into the description - is heartwarming.
I have not known this trio until now. What a beauty! Schubert had so many tricks up his sleeve, and this recording has a wonderful spontaneity--so genial, lifelike, and free. Thanks to Ashish--you are a TH-cam treasure!
Schubert’s genius for translating emotional states of joy, sorrow and wit is so phenomenal! I love this trio without reservation - spiritually uplifting happiness fuel. The Trio Dali plays brilliantly. Their Schubert album is superb, and their performance of the Fantasy in C is only surpassed by Oistrakh and Bauer, imo.
Just discovered your videos, can I just say that you are an amazing person and I am so grateful for your videos. This is just such a great learning resource, especially since I was really struggling with the analysis aspect of A-level music, this is so helpful for me. Thank you, wonderful person.
I've gone through both trios in consort with a violinist and a cellist, and can definitely say that I have always vastly preferred this trio to the other. It communicates at least with me far more readily, and I respond to it a lot better. Everyone's manner of reception of a work is different, so to say that this is a lesser cousin to the E Flat Major, Op. 100 Trio, strikes me as just a bit assumptive, regardless of what critical opinion may or may not be.
As so often with Schubert I find there are moments when I simply gasp at the beauty of it. Today I was wondering if there is anything in music to touch the coda of the slow movement? I saw a film on TH-cam recently in which Andras Schiff talked about (and played) Schubert. There was one great moment when he described the trinity in music: Bach (the father), Mozart (the son) and Schubert (the holy spirit). Thank you for loading all this and for choosing such a marvelous performance.
Branching out into chamber music? An excellent and irresistible choice to start with, though the B flat is surely not a lesser cousin of the E flat -it's better known though perhaps not as deep (though this performance does bring out the grandeur).
This is awesome. I’ve never had the chance to see the sheet music while hearing the audio before. One minor error is the page turns too fast at the 13:44 mark but still great video. This is a brilliant piano trio that I had overlooked for years.
I think there are a few typos in the sheet. e.g. : at 3:27, the right hand of the piano is playing syncopation, but it's missing the first rest in one of the 4th bar.
I would like to ask a question to those who want to answer: Why does most classical musicians want their interpretation of a work to come as close to the composers intention as possible? The composer is dead 200years ago and so they will not be able to evaluate your performance. The only ones who will hear your performance is the audience, and so why not interpret a work the way we feel it should be?
Hi there ! I'm not a professional, but I've been playing the piano for many years. I would say that one's intention shouldn't be to come as close as the composer's intention but to give a heartfelt rendition with respect to the composer's style and era. In my opinion, you can play "however you feel" but then if you put pedals and rubato changing the rhythm whenever you "feel like it", you can't call it "Prelude & Fugue BWV xxx" by J.S.Bach (random example), you should say you improvise on a Bach piece, which is fine but a different story. If you intend to give an interpretation of a piece, you have to respect the score and what we know of the composer's intention (time signature, tempo indication, pianos, fortes, other relevant marks or indications). Rest is up to you, and that's the beauty of it !
There are actually very few classical musicians who have that goal. Many say they wish to represent the composers intentions, but very few actually care. They simply want to imbue their interpretation with more significance than it deserves. We know pretty much the tempo they would have imagined their works to be played due to their tempo indications, and we can presume they would have used limited rubato as when the found it necessary they would put it in the score. These indications are largely ignored to different degrees, which I certainly don’t think is a necessarily bad thing. But for those who do truly care about performance history, there are a couple reasons. One, there’s the novelty (probably not the right word but oh well). Just the idea that we are hearing it how Schubert, Mozart, Beethoven etc. wanted their music to be played is just interesting. Also, in many cases it may be surprising how amazing some of these pieces sound when the composers tempo in particular is followed. I’ve just pretty much rambled so sorry about that, but just my thoughts.
Some of the discussion below Ashish's Video "Mussorgsky: Pictures at an Exhibition (Pletnev, Andsnes)" was really illuminating about this question. Some of it was also really toxic. Just ignore those comments.
Cause there is a danger your interpretation may completely change the work both style and content wise. We are so much into the future that you can apply many styles to this
It would be really interesting to hear this on original instruments. Schubert obtains the most luscious sounds from the medium, more so than Beethoven I think, but I should like to hear more exactly how it sounded to the composer. As for the question, of course you use all available resources to understand, ie the notes, tempo, dynamics, articulation, other works by this composer and his contemporaries. You certainly love the work, else why would you be playing it? Why do you love it? You feel it and admire it. So then you give it out in the best way you can.
![โรงเรียนตอนตี 2 โคตรหลอน..!! [โรงเรียนไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2MAEMwqVYh8/mqdefault.jpg)
Mvt 1 - 00:00
Mvt 2 - 14:33
Mvt 3 - 24:51
Mvt 4 - 32:05
Trio Dali puts in a wonderful performance here - they seem to have an especially conversational way of playing (in contrast to the many excellent recordings that seem to take a more declaratory, performative approach, with Capucon probably being the best example of this). You hear it right from the beginning, with the gregarious piano and the microscopic rhythmic tug at the violin arpeggio in m.4. It’s also especially prominent in the return of the main theme in Mvt 2, where the interplay of shy counterpoint in the strings (22:02) is breathtaking, and the cello part is judged perfectly - there is no unnecessary sliding or vibrato, and the playing is nothing but sincere. Mvt 3, which often risks sounding stiff, is vibrant and beautifully textured, while Mvt 4 manages to sound both fantastic (in the sense of weird), funny, and entirely natural at the same time.
Ashish Xiangyi Kumar
InstaBlaster...
À0⁰⁰0⁰000000⁰0⁰00⁰00q00⁰000⁰0⁰0⁰00ñ
The amount of effort you put into these wonderful videos - going through a 41-minute video and changing the image of the score when necessary, and especially the work put into the description - is heartwarming.
I agree. Thanks for doing it.
I've started doing it myself as well, thanks for recognizing how much work that's actually needed for this type of videos!
It really is a lengthy process, I just wrote a two hour exam just about the exposition of the first movement
I just performed this today! Came home and saw you uploaded this -- what a wonderful way to end the day!
I have not known this trio until now. What a beauty! Schubert had so many tricks up his sleeve, and this recording has a wonderful spontaneity--so genial, lifelike, and free. Thanks to Ashish--you are a TH-cam treasure!
Schubert’s genius for translating emotional states of joy, sorrow and wit is so phenomenal! I love this trio without reservation - spiritually uplifting happiness fuel. The Trio Dali plays brilliantly. Their Schubert album is superb, and their performance of the Fantasy in C is only surpassed by Oistrakh and Bauer, imo.
Just discovered your videos, can I just say that you are an amazing person and I am so grateful for your videos. This is just such a great learning resource, especially since I was really struggling with the analysis aspect of A-level music, this is so helpful for me. Thank you, wonderful person.
Yes! My favourite piano trio
9:01 that harmony in the piano part is magical
so true
Thank you for the many lessons included within your presentation of this great composition.
Wow !! Thank you so much for this great work you did, plus for choosing this very fine recording :)))
I am si grateful.
Thank you for this amazing piece!
Ah an amazing classic. Thank you for sharing this and the music
Great analysis as usual, thank you. It helps a lot, listening becomes more thoughtful
Thank you ashish for your work
Wunderschön
I've gone through both trios in consort with a violinist and a cellist, and can definitely say that I have always vastly preferred this trio to the other. It communicates at least with me far more readily, and I respond to it a lot better. Everyone's manner of reception of a work is different, so to say that this is a lesser cousin to the E Flat Major, Op. 100 Trio, strikes me as just a bit assumptive, regardless of what critical opinion may or may not be.
I love them both, but this was my first love.
Yeah I don't get the love for No.2. Overrated whilst No.1 is overhated.
@@sebastian-benedictflore Why is No. 1 "overhated?"
@@alger3041 idk man. Idk
As so often with Schubert I find there are moments when I simply gasp at the beauty of it. Today I was wondering if there is anything in music to touch the coda of the slow movement?
I saw a film on TH-cam recently in which Andras Schiff talked about (and played) Schubert. There was one great moment when he described the trinity in music: Bach (the father), Mozart (the son) and Schubert (the holy spirit).
Thank you for loading all this and for choosing such a marvelous performance.
Branching out into chamber music? An excellent and irresistible choice to start with, though the B flat is surely not a lesser cousin of the E flat -it's better known though perhaps not as deep (though this performance does bring out the grandeur).
Three outstanding soloist make great Harmony...!!!^^
This is awesome. I’ve never had the chance to see the sheet music while hearing the audio before. One minor error is the page turns too fast at the 13:44 mark but still great video. This is a brilliant piano trio that I had overlooked for years.
The pianist, Amandine Savary, is brilliant!
Love the harmonic descent from 9:23 💔
Love it! :)
Still listening to it.
14:33
14:33
24:51
24:51
32:05
32:05
21:18
This modulation 😭
Use of "false treble clef" in the part of the cello; notes to be played one octave lower than written.
Yeah, I was really confused about that at first 😄
I think there are a few typos in the sheet. e.g. : at 3:27, the right hand of the piano is playing syncopation, but it's missing the first rest in one of the 4th bar.
03:18
03:23
08:56
Hello
35:18 cello part go 😀
Also the :v staccato+hairpin groups
05:14
32:40
10:15
10:48
1st movement - allegro moderato?
Gran trabajo el de Schubert y el del caballero que tanto ama la Música como para hacer este vídeo. Gracias.
And the musicians who are performing
@@lucasalvesdoo3725 Sí, claro. Sin duda alguna. A veces se nos pasa lo más evidente por cercanía.😊
I would like to ask a question to those who want to answer:
Why does most classical musicians want their interpretation of a work to come as close to the composers intention as possible? The composer is dead 200years ago and so they will not be able to evaluate your performance. The only ones who will hear your performance is the audience, and so why not interpret a work the way we feel it should be?
Hi there ! I'm not a professional, but I've been playing the piano for many years. I would say that one's intention shouldn't be to come as close as the composer's intention but to give a heartfelt rendition with respect to the composer's style and era. In my opinion, you can play "however you feel" but then if you put pedals and rubato changing the rhythm whenever you "feel like it", you can't call it "Prelude & Fugue BWV xxx" by J.S.Bach (random example), you should say you improvise on a Bach piece, which is fine but a different story. If you intend to give an interpretation of a piece, you have to respect the score and what we know of the composer's intention (time signature, tempo indication, pianos, fortes, other relevant marks or indications). Rest is up to you, and that's the beauty of it !
There are actually very few classical musicians who have that goal. Many say they wish to represent the composers intentions, but very few actually care. They simply want to imbue their interpretation with more significance than it deserves. We know pretty much the tempo they would have imagined their works to be played due to their tempo indications, and we can presume they would have used limited rubato as when the found it necessary they would put it in the score. These indications are largely ignored to different degrees, which I certainly don’t think is a necessarily bad thing. But for those who do truly care about performance history, there are a couple reasons. One, there’s the novelty (probably not the right word but oh well). Just the idea that we are hearing it how Schubert, Mozart, Beethoven etc. wanted their music to be played is just interesting. Also, in many cases it may be surprising how amazing some of these pieces sound when the composers tempo in particular is followed. I’ve just pretty much rambled so sorry about that, but just my thoughts.
Some of the discussion below Ashish's Video "Mussorgsky: Pictures at an Exhibition (Pletnev, Andsnes)" was really illuminating about this question.
Some of it was also really toxic. Just ignore those comments.
Cause there is a danger your interpretation may completely change the work both style and content wise.
We are so much into the future that you can apply many styles to this
It would be really interesting to hear this on original instruments. Schubert obtains the most luscious sounds from the medium, more so than Beethoven I think, but I should like to hear more exactly how it sounded to the composer. As for the question, of course you use all available resources to understand, ie the notes, tempo, dynamics, articulation, other works by this composer and his contemporaries. You certainly love the work, else why would you be playing it? Why do you love it? You feel it and admire it. So then you give it out in the best way you can.
Plus lentement bon Dieu…..
I wonder who is else here after the 2023 ap theory exam
What was the question that involved this work?
13:08 - 13:10 wrong notes in the piano left hand 🤓
Thumbs down for mistake at 38:54 with the pianist’s F note.
I dont hear a mistake