Comparison: How to (not) play the opening of Mozart's Fantasia in D minor K 397 

I think the people that are applauding Gould's approach because he "plays as he likes it" or whatever completely miss the pianist's point. Gould wasn't playing Mozart to please anyone or really even himself. In fact, he himself didn't like Mozart's music at all. He once opined that the composer's greatest problem wasn't that he died too young, but that he died far past his sell-by date. Properly understood, Gould's achievement here is less about interpretation as one normally understands it and more about delivering a kind of running commentary on what makes Mozart's music deficient in his view. Taken as such his approach, though utterly perverse, is also illuminating and highly original. My tastes in Mozart tends to run towards Gieseking, Moravec, Landowska, and Kraus if we're talking about straight listening. But I can't think of another pianist that provokes one to think-indeed, rouse to argue-over these sonatas the way Gould so memorably does.

Gould would be so pleased to know that he is still exciting controversy 30 years after his death.

I have to agree Landowska is by far the most beautiful. She has a golden touch. I did not know this recording, and will look for it :)

The beauty of music is that it can be played in as many different ways as the emotions the artist is capable of feeling and expressing. The same piece of music can be sad or happy depending on how it is played, or it can be curious, optimistic, angry, passionate etc etc. I love how music is so flexible and dynamic. The best part is that many of the most amazing pieces were written in a time when it was impossible to make an audible record of how the artist originally intended it to be played. I think this has given rise to such an amazingly wide variety of musicians each unique and wonderful in their own ways. Wonderful, don't you think? :)

Bezuidenhout gets bonus points for performing on a period instrument and embracing the Mozartian style of improvisation, something which most performers seem to forget.

All beautiful in their unique ways...musical interpretations are like fingerprints.

Instructive. When I first learned this piece, not having much experience with Mozart, I played it like Beethoven - "the rude aggressive approach" to the first section (I'd rather call it "Sturm und Drang"), and plenty of rubato & tempo variations. I've learned to moderate my interpretation since then. Since "Fantasia" in Mozart's time implies a sense of being improvised, even Gould's idiosyncratic approach is justifiable - and so are all the others! I think I like Arrau the best, but I also like Levy's "terraced dynamics" (which is how I play it); but on a Tuesday I might prefer Landowska....

The first recording I heard of Mozart's fantasy was Gould's, so I set that as a model. When I hear others, it felt wrong, and felt rushed.

The example of the performance presented as the "eccentric's approach" (Glenn Gould's) seems to me to be a very anticipatory introduction to the composition, which leaves me begging to hear the entire piece of music. Rather amazing for an artist who surely did not consider Mozart among the greatest of composers.

The "do you know the alla breve sign" approach.

Thank you pianopera. This is a wrenching from my harbor of smug happiness. I am suddenly wondering just what the hell I do like...but truthfully, first and foremost my desire is to know the composer's mindsetting. Phew! now I'm at sea.

I played this for years and was never comfortable with the opening. In this case I really like Emil Gilels phantasmagoric sound as if it is all 'memories' and faded dreams. I like it because of the contrast with what is to come. In fact, I just sold my piano but now I think I shall rent one for awhile to try this again.

Landowska: AH, my ears. THAT TUNING TOOK MEH BY SURPRISE.

Landowska's is particularly gorgeous 😍

Each one of these remarkable pianists were and are better than I will ever be, but where in Mozart's transcription indicate to soak the introduction down with sustain? Gould was the only one who refrained from using the damper, and finger-pedaled the notes he wanted to sustain, making his interpretation more authentic than many people give him credit for, through those staccato notes in the middle of the phrases was interesting to say the least. I was fine with the differences in tempo (it's a fantasy, after all,) because it's andante (walking) which is a pretty general term. If it's Bach, it's Gould and Schiff. For Beethoven, it's Brendel and Gilels. For Mozart, it's Pollini imho.

I enjoyed Levy's approach. I was taught that if notes (or phrases) repeat, that they should be played differently the second time. Maybe his approach is a bit extreme, but I enjoyed this interpretation much more than the ones that just decided to play it faster or slower.

This is a piece that I love. It's the romantic side of Mozart and I think anticipates romanticism, or simply reflects the fact that Mozart was a flesh and blood human being. The only performances of the introduction that convince me are the Landowska and the Levy. I'm not familiar with Levy but would be interested to hear more of his playing. These two alone seem to me to get beneath the surface of the music. Even in these few bars they seem to have a conception of the music which will lead them to a very satisfying interpretation. I don't have a strong feeling that the others have an understanding of the music which will lead to an interpretation rather than note playing.

Brilliant, that anyone can express it his own way!

Bezuidenhout becomes the piece. And it’s never the same. Plus, he’s playing on the closest instrument to what Mozart had, at that time. There’s no comparison, in my opinion..he understands the music on a level that is post-20th century...

Gilels is by far the best here. Although Levy is intriguing and Landowska is beautiful

For this particular fragment, I prefer Landowska...

I liked Wanda Landowska's the best. Makes me want to hear more of her playing.

Based on the different readings I'm hearing here, I would say that Claudio Arrau comes closest to my own ideas of what this should sound like, but I can't speak for others.

Gould famously declared that he didn't like Mozart, so I don't know why he bothered to play his music, unless it was, as you say ,to intentionally distort it beyond recognition.

Gould emphasizes the two horizontal lines of the left hand (the little finger and the thumb) to produce a new dimension of counterpoint out of Mozart.

My favorite is the Version of Alfred Brendel, which is not included.

I am not a professional musician and I play it in my own romantic manner. And I like it. For me, Daniil Trifinov's rendition is the best one.

Gilels is fantastic i love his opening very emotional.

all of them are superb - the melody is supernatural - divine - l love it annyway................

Yup, those are also also my preferences. Actually nice to have a fragment that apparently some people are "unsure of how to play it" ;) - it's real music; it opens up so many fascinating possibilities for performers, and interesting interpretations.

A fascinating glimpse into the myriad possibilities of performing a familiar piece of music At a certain level I would encourage all students to listen to this clip. Once the basics have been mastered, then comes the opportunity for the soul of a performer to share in the music. It is this sharing which makes it all worthwhile. Otherwise only the composer experiences true creativity. As a young pianist many years ago, the norm was a terrible rigidity and adherence to the written notation. Today thanks to performers like Gould and Gulda, we can participate. For better or worse, to be sure. But still it is a level of creativity classical performers were long denied.

Glenn Gould is the Infinity Universe. He is so Amazing. Forever Love you Glenn Gould.

I liked Bezuidenhout out of all of them.

Well-done; thanks for posting. I like a lot of what Gulda does but wow, that is jarring.

Landowska, by a long, long shot...

If there are so many approaches to play this piece, it is also because of its mystical character leaving as its name suggests freedom to fantasy. In this direction Daniil Trifonov's interpretation is also original.

Very interesting, thanks. I think more than one approach is effective, though it does seem this introduction works best when there's some pathos in it, which is difficult to achieve with a fast tempo. How different pianists handle what follows the introduction, the plaintive first theme of the adagio, is also fascinating. I myself love the 397 by Ingrid Haebler posted on youtube by pianushko on Aug. 15, 2013, whose url for some reason cannot be copied here.

Bezuidenhout ftw!

Fantastic video

Hey... don't be hatin' on Gulda. I like him. He was a great pianist and I think he had a very good feel for Mozart. That's my opinion, and I know... everybody has one.

If you would like to hear/watch another version, I just uploaded the piece on my profile (not gonna spam here with link). I played it on 1879 Pleyel piano so the sound is somehow "half authentic"... And I used the opening motiv one more time at the end as a "closing repetition" (based on Mitsuko Uchida's rendition, but I extended it a bit further). I don't like the editor's kinda short-happy ending.

Love this. Thanks!

If a dozen artists were given paints and a canvas and taken out to a landscape and told to paint it, the same scene would be represented in twelve different ways. Each artist would draw attention to whatever caught their attention most and there would be a reflection of their personality and emotions at the time in the final piece. That does not make any one of them wrong, it adds interest and variety, which they say is the spice of life. Music is art and the performer is at liberty to play it as (s)he wishes. This does not necessarily mean one is right and another is wrong although some people may dislike a particular rendition. If it was set in stone that there was only one right way to play a piece, then only one recording would suffice and the world would be a duller place. Everyone should play from their heart, as they feel and interpret the piece, using the score in front of them as a guide but not striving to copy anyone else's ideas. Which of us actually heard Mozart play this anyway? So who has the authority th say what the definitive performance is? Before all else, if anyone is that bothered about tempo and style of playing, there are issues of pitch and temperament that should also be addressed!

Can we get a comparison like this for the C Minor fantasy, including Taneyev's version? In these ones here, my favourite is Landowska, by a rather long way. And Bezuidenhout second (who does a similar thing to Levy) even if he is a bit mannered in his delaying of downbeats. Without the silly overkill dynamics, I would have put Levy first though... his tempi seem very well judged.

Nice to compare those champions! Actually i really like the 3 and the 5! Means something for them. And for me.

I have nearly no taste in music, so i try to appreciate every performance, and GG is among my top tier whatever. I hear GG because of TB. He did write sth like i hear Mozart in the way i wanna hear him, against those had artistic sense.

@ berlinzerberus >Die Introduktion zur Fantasie gehört nicht zu den Mozartschen Kostbarkeiten. Sie klingt so, als habe der Meister ein paar belanglose Takte aus einem Bach-Präludium kopiert und an den Anfang gesetzt.< Das ist Unsinn! Sie haben sicher nicht bemerkt, dass im Andante das Adagio-Thema verborgen ist! ;-)

This is a really cool video, thanks for the work!!

Thank you for this introguing complication. For me Arau and Landowska!

No 2, Friedrich Gulda's rendition is what it takes. Brutal. What follows is a wonderful contrast of heavenly beauty . . .

Thank you for this very clear presentation. The descriptions are not entirely dispassionate or unbiased, but at least we can all make up our minds as to which we prefer. Personally I think the eccentric version is the least satisfactory.

Of course this is "Andante" and "Alla breve" - each interpreter should have noted this before even starting. But it would also have been very interesting to hear in which tempo - or tempo relationship - the following Adagio is played! IMHO the halves of the Andante become the quarters of the Adagio - THAT makes sense ... I like Wanda Landowskas approach ...

Gulda made it just like something that Richard Clayderman usually played ! 😁

For me Uchida’s version is the best (not represented here).

Die Introduktion zur Fantasie gehört nicht zu den Mozartschen Kostbarkeiten. Sie klingt so, als habe der Meister ein paar belanglose Takte aus einem Bach-Präludium kopiert und an den Anfang gesetzt. Meistens weiß man nicht, wie man sie spielen soll, streng im Bachschen Modus oder eher romantisch mit einigem Rubato. Ich glaube, dass dies der Grund für Glenns Karikatur ist. Ich bin mir manchmal nicht so sicher, ob Mozart SELBST diese Einleitung so ernst genommen hat.Das Thema ist jedoch wunderbar.

Many thanks for the video that's so precious and full of teachings. The only one I don't like that much is Ogdon's interpretation.

3, 4 , 6 , 8... I love Gulda, but not that much here (Andante! ) ... Many thanks for the video :)

Mme. Landowska wins. Levy's approach to dynamics and rubato is very nice. It sounds great, in the last example, on the instrument for which it was written: no surprise there. What was Ogdon thinking? His tempo messes up the architecture of the whole piece. Thanks for an interesting video!

You telling me NOT to play like these? You can't tell me what to do. I'm gonna learn to play this piece, and i'm gonna make sure i am able to do the intro all 8 of these styles. And most of them are good what's the problem anyway?

What a very nice clip; thanks! (though the framgment is a bit short...) Hmmm, let me see: if I had all 8 renditions at hand, which one(s) would I take with me to Paradise Island? Don't care much for Emil Gilels: too slow, too careful. Nor John Ogden: way too fast; sounds hurried even. Funny: this may be just because the movie Amadeus left me with a portait of a vibrant, even brass young man - not a philosopher, nor someone trying to clear the stage as quickly as possible. Stupid to let such associations control my taste but there you have it. In two other cases personality considerations influence my listening ear, but now it is the pianist: I am a fan of Glenn Gould and might listen to his version several times, but more to discover what he wanted to say then to enjoy the music, I fear. For Gulda, too, I've always had great sympathy and some of his Mozart renderings (one here on youtube) I like better then anyone else's (incl. Horrowiz, Perahia, Bahrenboim - sadly missing here). But in this case I think the 'announcement' is right: it does sound (too) agressive. Can it be there is another recording of this piece by Gulda or is my memory playing tricks? Four down, four to go. Levy's approach is 'interesting' but in my ears it sounds a bit contrived though; would'nt take it with me to paradise island. But then Landowska. Infinitely subtle and beautiful; probably my favourite version on, say, the day my cat had died. Arrao. What can I say but that it's a 'balanced approach'? Much as I appreciate fancy cooking every now and then, for daily use I prefer the good home made stew since it never, never bores me. Definitely I'd take Mr. Arrao's sculpture with me to paradise island. But I'd be looking hard in my bag if there was place for just one more and if so i would be for Bezuidenhout's version; in fact, his renditions on the fortepiano have been a revelation to me, something really fresh and bold and dynamic without any hint of 'making a statement' (like Gould) or contrivance (like Levy) or exaggeration (like Gilels or Ogden). I'm done. They say there's no accounting for taste, but I happen to think that at least trying to account for taste makes for the most amusing conversations so please comment.

I bet if Mozart were alive he would say they were all wrong!

Very interesting ! Thanks

It's funny how for all of these pianists there is someone who "agree" with them, but the only one who must be criticized everytime is Gould.. Probably the major genius.

Yes but GG also said Scarlatti was not worth it, so it proves he should not always be a referrence. But there is one thing great in what he did : he showed the links between composers like Schoenberg, and Bach (baut it is true he was not the first to do so). And it is great he played Schoenberg.

Loved Gould and Gilels!

Gould is just spoofing - I can imagine it with that hopping Minah bird from the Looney Tunes cartoon. haha I'm gathering by your intro you don't like Ogdon. He clearly doesn't go for pathos, but I don't mind it as a free style warm up. Haven't heard the rest, not sure how it works in the big picture.

Play it as you want to, to please yourself not others, but if you want to argue about which is more 'accurate' for Mozart here, I'd say Gilels, because it's the closest to an Andante. Trifonov also plays it like this if you want a modern interpretation.

For me the last is my preferred one..

While interesting, one shouldn’t try to judge them against each other. The introduction is just that - a set-up for what follows, and it’s only in context that any sort of judgment can be make.

I wouldn't say that Gulda's performance is rude and less agressive... he's trying to find something for fun, according with his personality, and I think that considering that Mozart was as well a funny guy, he probably would choose him as the best candidate

My master always said that the intro must be played fast. I played this into a theatre this way... and is a lot faster than all versions in this video

Glenn Gould's rendition can be hardly considered the funneist should you be botherd to listen to the full version At first , especially the beginning sounds rather bewildering, but the more you listen to to it the more you get taken away , far away into the fabulous world created by sumptuous imagination of the all time greatest pianist

The best version of this piece is missing - the one played by Wilhelm Kempff... He outshines all the others...

The "authentic" one was pretty authentic, especially with the fortepiano. What's the problem with his version?

The Gilels one is beautiful

How to play the opening of Mozart's Fantasia in D minor K 397 ?

Wanda is the best. Second, Arrau. Great too. First time I hear Ersnt Levy. Is good.

Actually it´s all about the "right" tempo. Most players didn´t read carefully - it´s indicated Andante ALLA BREVE, which translates to : walking (going) in TWO ! Gould demonstrated here why he (often) is a bad interpreter: he doesn´t play Mozart, he always plays Gould, which would be ok if he also was the composer! I prefer the 9th version ...

Andante, Gilels. Landowska will teach you.

I would want to try to play the fantasia like Wanda Landowska does.

Your thoughts are very interesting! Though I feel that this introduction is more than merely a copy of a Bach-piece. I think the tempo of Gilels doesn't work, it's too static and slow; after all the tempo indication is "Andante".

What I find interesting about these performances is that not one chooses one or two clear objectives to aim for dynamically. All are sort of directionless.

The best interprets of this Fantaisie are Emil Giles and Danil Trifonov (not listed here)

Fun comparison! The only one I would reprimand is John Ogdon, who puts no thought into it.

Wanda Landowska! :-)

Gould's is the most distinctive, original and interesting, in fact the only one that's not kind of boring. But this is only a bunch of nothing special arpeggios, a nice simple intro to an odd easy popular piano student piece that Mozart himself didn't think enough of to finish! Everyone can and should play it slightly differently. The comparison says very little about deep pianism.

Wanda Landowska does it right

Very good analysis. I thank you very much for this clever presentation. Bezuidenhout is fine, but too much pedal for my taste. Arrau is great, as usual, but in this case I invite you to hear Daniil Trifonov's performance. Blessings from Catalonia, next State of Europe.

Of course this is Andante, but in 2/4 meter.

How did Gould get a black eye?

This isn't how to play it. This is how a musician sees it it should be played. No where said Mozart how to play it he just wrote it and other's played through the way they see it. But could've been completely different then Mozart saw it

So... what is the right way to play Mozart's Fantasia then?

Lol, this video is so crazy funny. 😭🎹 educational humor at its finest!

look up Koroliov's recording of this fantasy. One of my favorites.

I play it almost like Landowska, still I believe Mozart played it more like Gulda and Ogdon.

I fell that playing a tempo leads in many cases still from Bach to Beethoven to rythmical problems at the end effect, bad proportion, bad form, bad meaning. So i ask, why do i hear so much people who never wrote music down? Do you think the composer wants to write how he plays or what he plays?

Levy is full of beauty... taste and feeling as mozart required in his letters... horowitz and maria joao pires flow mozart music better than the rest..

I think you should’ve included Walter Klein’s performance! Along with Vikingur Olafson, it’s one of the best performances of the entire piece out there in my opinion. That said, with this selection, it’s hard to beat Kristian Bezuidenhout

Arrau - Landowska

Very interesting. I hate to admit this but Gould's 11 bars are not so bad after all. The rest of the piece as I seem to recall is another matter.