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]>