Thomas D. Pearson: [abridged]

>...I have a large fondness for everybody's whipping boy, the Triple
>Concerto.  I find it as inventive as the violin concerto, and more
>satisfying musically.  I realize this is not just a minority opinion;
>apparently, my judgment is simply perverse.  Since I am not one who holds
>that my taste is hallowed simply because it is *my* taste, I wonder what
>it is that I am missing when I listen to the TC.  Just where is the clumsy
>and uninspired character of this work located?"

Interesting to me that when I was a kid (mid-century) one rarely heard
op. 56 live (if so, played by orchestra principals) and there were only
two recordings of it (late 30s, Weingartner/VPO, and late 40s [?],
Walter/NYPhil).  I'd be fascinated to know what its early reception-history
and critical-history might have been.  "Received opinion" on the Triple was
negative at mid-century, but I think that sheer unfamiliarity might have
contributed to this.

Kate Miller's 1973 reference guide to American symphonic repertoire from
the 1842-43 season through the 1969-70 season, "Twenty-seven Major American
Symphony Orchestras" shows an infinitesimal number of performances compared
to those of the Violin Concerto or the last three piano concerti.  The BSO
played the Triple three times between 1881 and 1965, the NY Philharmonic,
five times between 1914 and 1959, the Chicago Symphony, seven times between
1899 and 1955, and so forth.  In contrast, the BSO played the Violin
Concerto 30 times between 1881 and 1967, the NY Philharmonic, 43 times
between 1861 and 1966, and the Chicago Symphony, 45 times between 1893 and
1969.  There were about as many performances of any of the last three piano
concerti during the same span by each of these groups.

I suspect that the proliferation of full-time piano trios, beginning with
the formation of the Beaux-Arts Trio in the l950's will have contributed
to the increased popularity of Op.  56 in the LP and CD era.  There are
certainly a lot of recordings of it now, among them both those featuring ad
hoc groupings of stars and those with a pre-extant piano trio as soloists.
Kurt Masur ought to get a special Triple Concerto award; he's conducted it
on records either three or four times, and clearly takes Op.  56 very
seriously.

I've always enjoyed the Triple very much, love to conduct it (it has by
far the easiest tuttis all the Beethoven concerti, hence it's susceptible
to more polish in less time) and feel that Beethoven solved the serious
structural problems implicit in such a concertante work with enormous ease
and elan.

Hoping not to raise the "intentional fallacy" or some variant of it, I
suspect that it was meant to be a congenial, entertaining work, and am
convinced that it succeeds admirably in that.  That it is probably not at
the exalted level of the works which are its approximate contemporaries
(the Eroica, the Violin Concerto, the 4th Piano Concerto, the Op.  59
quartets, and so forth) can't be denied, but---after all, it's MIDDLE
PERIOD BEETHOVEN and there is a highly finite amount of that around!

Joel Lazar
Conductor, Bethesda MD
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>