Aparte has commissioned Il Pomo d’Oro under the direction of Maxim Emelyanychev to record the symphonies of Mozart; in this edition the first and last symphonies are separated by the A major concerto for piano, K. 488, with Emelyanychev as soloist.

While there are many cycles of Mozart, the first one that likely changed hearts and minds in a significant way was the one undertaken on original instruments under Christopher Hogwood. For many years it presented Mozart’s music—the music we knew and many early works we did not know so well—with a new sound. I don’t have access to all the original reviews, but I am sure they were divided.

Hogwood also set about to record all of Haydn’s symphonies and now Giovanni Antonini is set to do the same with his Haydn 2032 project. I’d started collecting the Hogwood sets when they came out but I found it difficult to get that excited about the music.

But I think Emelyanychev and Antonini represent the contemporary wave of interpreters that yes, use historical instruments, but also approach the music far more ample doses of dynamics, dramatic interpretations, and sounds that more completely reveal the outer abilities of their performers. Loud music is more loud, soft music, more soft. Pitting these two musicians together isn’t meant to make them equals or to say they are cut from the same cloth. I’d easily wager that the clothes worn by Antonini are often more daring, brightly patterned, but in helping the reader understand the state of historical performance practice, I think these two projects might be seen under the same shade of light.

I’ve neatly bookmarked these projects with Hogwood, and in the case of Mozart’s symphonies, Emelyanychev. But that’s not exactly fair; other names that should be spoken include John Eliot Gardiner, Trevor Pinnock, Jos van Immerseel, Rene Jacobs, although each of these conductors did not tackle a complete set. I’ve also not auditioned the 2011 set by cellist/conductor Jaap ter Linden completely. I just want to ask if we need another HIP set?

Symphony in E-flat, K.16.

I compared this first symphony, written in three movements, to the renditions by ter Linden with the Mozart Akademie Amsterdam (Brilliant Classics), the Academy of Ancient Music (Egarr, 2013, AAM Records), and by von der Goltz with the Freiburger Barockorchester (2019, Aparte) to cover some more recent recordings. The three are very different, although all three are good. It’s hard though not to notice the energy and enthusiasm in the rendition by the FBO. The recording by the MAA suffers from an inferior application of good sound engineering, the orchestra sounds top heavy and for a chamber orchestra, I feel as I’m too far away. The sound engineering is most transparent with the FBO’s recording, although there is most definitely a sound of their “hall” as much as each of these recordings have a “sound.”

The new recording by Pomo d’Oro’s sound is hard to place; there too is a sound of their recording space that’s quite palpable; while it lacks the extreme clarity of the FBO recording, it does to my ears capture the full gamut of the ensemble’s sound (from the double basses through the tinkle of the harpsichord). There’s nearly as much energy as the FBO recording in the outer movements but there is less of a sensation of dynamic contrast.

All these ensembles take very different approaches with the middle Andante; AAM runs through it most quickly, which reveals to us just how simple the writing is. It’s almost as if they’re saying to us there’s not much to notice. Emelyanychev’s reading is the longest, running nearly 6 minutes. While I tend to think AAM might have something if they truly thought there’s not a lot of profound music there, I do like the texture we get with Il Pomo d’Oro with those horns.

Let’s be honest, this isn’t a profound piece of music. Mozart would have needed help writing it, after all, at the age of 8.

Emelyanychev doesn’t take the music too seriously, offering the best part, the ending Presto, with gusto and energy. What the piece does reveal is that Mozart could pen attractive melodies.

Symphony in C, K. 551 “Jupiter”

I recently reviewed two recordings featuring this final symphony of Mozart’s, finding them both high flyers. Le Concert de la Loge (Chauvin, conductor; Alpha 2021) and Ensemble Appassionato (Herzog, conductor; Naive, 2018) offered, to my ears, nearly ideal renditions. One had solid energy and good sound, the other pushed boundaries in new and interesting ways. Of course, the crowd with great contenders with Mozart’s later symphonies makes or a different battle. Nearly every significant orchestra, HIP or not, has recorded this work.

I admire Emelyanychev’s interpretation for taking his time; the first movement isn’t rushed and he takes ample pauses between the endings of one phrase to another. Both the andante and Menuetto do well to bring accents in the appropriate places in the melodies. The timpani used aren’t shy and fill up their recording venue well.

I did give a quit listen to Riccardo Minasi’s interpretation of the Menuetto with the non-HIP Ensemble Resonaz, who attempt some novel turns in their reading. I welcomed returning to Emelyanychev’s more traditional reading, despite, well, liking novel interpretations. Minasi is worth comparing, I think, as he’s been associated with Il Pomo d’Oro in the past in recordings and himself is known as an HIP violinist.

My favorite part about Mozart’s last movement is how he designed each of the horizontal themes in the symphony to fit together like a puzzle, as he reveals in the coda. Again, Emelyanychev doesn’t seem to be out to forge a new place in interpretive history; he doesn’t adopt a breakneck speed like Herzog or go for brash and loud like Minasi. Coming back to his new recording is like going back to something more familiar and traditional.

The coda is done well, I think; there’s a special clarity to all the parts which is sometimes lost in other recordings.

Which is not to say it isn’t played well. I thought it might be a good idea to go back to where we started and to look at the rendition recorded by the English Concert before Pinnock’s retirement from that ensemble. The recording is good, but it has that kind of artificial gloss to it that again puts me a little too far away from the instruments; the winds really stick out and the timpani are difficult to hear if they’re being used? I do think Pinnock pushes the tempo just a slight bit to Emelyanychev; the strings have more transparency and I definitely like the forwardness of the timpani. I’ve liked the Pinnock but new comers, I thought, have done that recording one better. As a complete set, however? I still think it’s got legs.

The question is does Emelyanychev have something to say this many years later in taking on a complete set?

Piano Concerto in A, K. 488

The aforementioned Julien Chauvin also recorded Mozart’s 40th symphony, paired with the same piano concerto on Emelyanychev’s album with soloist Andreas Staier. Between the two recordings their tempos are very similar.

Let me get the first quibble out of the way, the Chauvin recording is better engineered. I’m going to ignore that in my comparison here.

In general terms I think Staier is the more articulate player, and while clear articulation is important, it’s not that it’s lacking in the performance by Emelyanychev. In fact, I favor Emelyanychev’s more lyrical approach.

Both performances offer a good balance between the piano and orchestra that feels natural. Those who prefer modern instrument performances might find this balance underwhelming, but it was what Mozart’s piano could do.

Final Thoughts

There’s much to enjoy in this album. It wasn’t designed, I think, to turn heads or to break new ground. Instead, I think, it serves a purpose more like Pinnock’s cycle: let’s do a solid rendition of Mozart’s symphonies and try and bring the HIP flavor mainstream. Emelyanychev seems more willing to play with time than Pinnock, bending phrases as they seem they want to be bent, and I think the result is musically satisfying.

When I compared his rendition of the piano concerto to an album I’d before really liked, I found Emleyanychev’s interpretation superior.

That said, I think there are more exciting renditions of some of these two symphonies on record already. Chauvin’s 40 and 41 (across two albums) were quite excellent; as are readings by Minkowski and Jacobs. In the case of the first, the FBO's recording was very different but ultimately had more color and punch, which I enjoy.

As they progress on this journey I’d encourage them to look at how to get the best possible sound in their recordings. It’s the one tweak to aim for in an already crowded market. Giving us the transparency that’s not possible in a filled, modern-sized concert hall along with some natural reverb goes a long way to amplifying the musical potential of these works.

The only problem with the 1-disc installments will be easy comparisons with what’s already on disc. (Pinnock and Hogwood, I believe, release their cycles over time in larger multi-disc sets.) But so goes the economics of classical music today. Haydn 2032 is dripping out their discs one at a time as well.

The difference, I think, is that Antonini’s recordings are not only going for being some of the best recorded with sound, but they’re also trying to go for those out-of-the-square-box interpretations, ala Minasi. I think Antonini is ultimately the better interpreter.

It may be worth Il Pomo d’Oro’s time to listen again to some of the albums I’ve mentioned. Their past recordings reveal they have the chops and smarts to do some exciting things.

Then again, I only know what I like, not what sells records/CDs/listens.