Brendel
Larry Preuss
that I thought of coming here for some comments. The first half of the
concert was all Mozart: the Fantasia K. 396 and the sonatas K. 281 and 282.
After intermission he was to play Schubert and Beethoven, but I could not
bring myself to stay for those pieces. He seemed disengaged, there was no
joy in the Mozart, and his fingering did not have the crispness that I have
been pleased with in many other performers. On top of this, he made a number
of errors. I heard him here 26 years ago and remember it as a moving
experience. is he ill?
Larry
Wayne Reimer <wrdsl
would necessarily be found in other performers - why not just stick with the
other performers? As far as the errors are concerned, some performers,
especially after they reach a certain age, have relatively little concern for
note-perfect performances. If this is an issue for you, perhaps you should
check on whether the performer you are going to hearing is one of these artists
before you go. You can ask here, and I'm sure many of us would be happy to
fill you in. I certainly would have told you not to go hear Brendel, had you
asked, because he's been hitting clinkers with some frequency for a long time.
I barely notice them, myself. I find that pianists who don't hit wrong notes
sometimes make me feel edgy in a way that doesn't enhance my experience; it's
because their concern over the mechanics have outweighed the musical ones that
I'm interested in.
wr
sam6...@earthlink.net
Larry Preuss wrote:
Brendel was never an infallible pianist to begin with. He could play
piano at a certain level, but never anything above your
preparatory-class Juilliard guy. (Some of his intellectual pretensions
can be safely attributed to his gauche attempts of covering up for an
insufficient mechanism.) On the other hand, after a certain age, hitting
some wrong notes is sometimes a sad inevitability, and an audience
should be understanding, within certain parameters, of what is after all
only a testimony to the physical perishableness of us all. Cortot at his
worst in his last years of life/career could screw up just as bad as
Brendel at his present best. However, in Brendel's particular case, what
could be perceived as particularly frustrating is that, unlike with
Fischer or Cortot, there's hardly anything else -- i.e., no emotion, no
beautiful sonority, no interpretative daring -- to compensate an
exceedingly understanding audience who gets treated with both bad
technique and utterly forgettable music-making. (Ability of writing
one's thoughts about music in the comfort of one's home, even if at a
decent level of musical literacy, doesn't really bring anything to the
concert experience.) From this point of view, the unsuspecting chap who
pays his $39.99 to attend the concert of "Mr. Beethoven" is in the end
frustrated both of his money and of any musical happening I would
characterize as memorable in the remotest way. Well, look at the bright
side: you'll know better next time, won't you? Tell a couple of friends,
too.
regards,
SG
Dan Koren
news:BCA4B15C.1263C%LPr...@NocomNocast.net...
No. Just dull.
dk
Dan Koren
news:xLJfc.12405$k05....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
What are you talking about?
Brendel is a genius. God's
greatest gift to mankind,
and the last titan in an
uninterrupted line of
pianistic thinkers.
Who cares if he can play
the piano? That is beneath
his wisdom and intelligence.
dk
Larry Preuss
@pacbell.net> at wrdsl<delete wrote on 4/16/04 12:45 AM:
Thank you for the reply. I had hoped my question would not be taken as a
complaint about a few misses: I sort of appended that observation. I have
attended a regular series for 63 years and know something about what happens
with age. Brendel was not involved with the music aspect of his music last
night, and I wondered if there were a well-known circumstance not well-known
to me. Segovia played here at 93 and was magnificent, despite a few
clinkers. I know that 26 years between hearings can make a huge difference,
but I didn't notice such in musicians like Rubinstein, Hess, so I thought I
would ask.
Larry
John Wilson
And he speaks so highly of you.
John
Simon Roberts
Odd you should ask. I heard him at he Edinburgh Festival a few years ago
accompanying (the right word, I think) Goerne in Winterreise. I was shocked by
the combination of finger slips in even the simplest of music with the lack of
anything resembling interpretative insights that might have compensated (I would
note that while I loathe the Brendel cult, I actually like more than a few of
his recordings and find his distinctive style - or what used to be his
distinctive style - a benefit to some music; the playing I heard was *not* what
I was expecting). I complained about this to various people subsequently.
Admirers of his who didn't attend the concert told me that he had a cold or flu
(or whatever it was) and thus wasn't playing up to his normal standard. Which
would be fine, I suppose, if the audience hadn't gone wild after the concert
(the applause was not all directed at Goerne; as I was leaving the hall a couple
of young twits were complaining sniffily that while Goerne may have been quite
good, he's no Ian Partridge ("such a *natural* singer"), and as for Brendel's
playing, swoon, what *could* one say?
In short, I share your evident perception that his playing has become blander in
recent years. I've no idea what the causes are. It does seem, though, from
reading published reviews - especially by London-based reviewers who, perhaps,
are biased in his favor in part because he's an anglophile and lives in London
-that the Brendel cult is in full sway and that his every performance and
recording, in some circles, is received with what looks like reflexive praise.
(E.g. his nth recording of the Beethoven concertos with Rattle, which strikes me
as being inferior in every way to its predecessor cond. Levine).
Simon
Van Eyes
news:BCA4B15C.1263C%LPr...@NocomNocast.net
> I heard Alfred Brendel play this evening, and was so terribly disappointed....
He's getting on in years...perhaps he was spent from his very recent
Vancouver concert (sell-out, good reviews) with son Adrian.
http://www.vanrecital.com/season/start.cfm?season=8&action=single&id=79
Regards
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Tom Deacon
"Larry Preuss" <LPr...@NocomNocast.net> wrote:
It is good that you have elaborated on your years of listening, otherwise I
would have dismissed your comments entirely.
Your post was a "red flag to the swine", of course, and they trotted out
their habitual comments about Brendel, first Golescu (he could never play
the piano, no tone, no this, no that) and then Koren.
As an admirer of Brendel over the years I have noticed that on occasion he
can "phone in" a performance. I heard one similar performance in Amsterdam
in the middle of his Beethoven cycles. Just didn't seem to be engaged, as
you said. But this has never been the rule. There have been so many others -
the complete Beethoven concerti in Vienna with Rattle (I doubt I shall ever
hear these works played as well in my lifetime), the best D minor Fantasy by
Mozart I have ever heard, a terrific Diabelli Variations in both Montreal
and Vancouver. And so on. Sometimes there are some wrong notes. But never
disturbingly so. Not at all in the manner of Rubinstein, who regularly got
lost in Chopin's Ballades and just started to fabricate some generic Chopin
until he found his way again. This happens and not only to older performers.
Some young pianists seem accident prone as well.
Then there is always the piano. In Montreal Brendel battled an old clinker
which he should never have been asked to play. In Vancouver he was far
better served by Steinway. In Europe Brendel usually has good instruments.
In America, well, what can I say? Average at best. And often abysmal.
I feel that you were quite wrong to have left the concert before the end.
Brendel always has something interesting to say, particularly about Schubert
and Beethoven. And you will now never know. That's a pity.
TD
Peter Breskin
news:BCA69D7F.1010%deac...@yahoo.com...
I heard Brendel just last year at Carnegie Hall playing Mozart's K331,
several Beethoven Bagatelles and op. 22, and Schubert's D850--my memory of
this concert definitely contradicts the impressions of the original poster.
There weren't many wrong notes at all, nor was there any hint that he was
"disengaged". While it's unfortunate that you weren't satisfied with the
performance you saw, I wouldn't hesitate to attend another of his concerts
(and probably will in the next week or two when he appears in New York).
Peter
sam6...@earthlink.net
Simon Roberts wrote:
> I was shocked by the combination of finger slips in even the simplest
> of music with the lack of anything resembling interpretative insights
> that might have compensated . . .
I am shocked by your being shocked! And appalled (that only in case
you've been appalled as well).
> In short, I share your evident perception that his playing has become blander in
> recent years.
Once one bothers to recall what was the level that he began with,
getting even blander must have been quite remarkable a performance.
regards,
SG
Wayne Reimer
I should add that I read a review of a concert he'd given just a few days
earlier than the one you heard (on the 11th), and the reviewer thought it was
great, and didn't mention any wrong notes at all, and Brendel sounded deeply
engaged. So, who knows...maybe he was ill, or really out of sorts.
wr
Wayne Reimer
<...>
But you're okay with the anti-Brendel cult? Just wondering...
wr
sam6...@earthlink.net
> But you're okay with the anti-Brendel cult? Just wondering...
Quite interesting. So one needs now membership in a "cult" to suggest
that a Woody Allen look-alike may have not created the 88 keys in 6
days. Or, more concretely, to warn the unsuspecting public that a clever
lad goes around selling, in shrill pitch, the suspicious maneveurs of a
collection of sloppy chops, projecting the (lack of) vision of a dried
old prune.
regards,
SG
P.S. We've been longing for an update for too long, so let us in: is
USPS still persecuting the secret dissidents, or is it the milkman these
days?
Dan Koren
news:MPG.1aeb9403b...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
More likely the reviewer was both
deaf and politically correct.
dk
Dan Koren
> > In article <c5oos...@drn.newsguy.com>, sd...@comcast.net says...
> <...>
>
> But you're okay with the anti-Brendel cult? Just wondering...
>
What "cult"?
Saying "the emperor is naked" is no cult....
dk
Simon Roberts
says...
>
>> In article <c5oos...@drn.newsguy.com>, sd...@comcast.net says...
><...>
>
>But you're okay with the anti-Brendel cult? Just wondering...
As far as I can tell it's tiny and not influential.
Simon
Tom Deacon
<dank...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Or, perhaps, politically Incorrect and quite able to hear.
Likelihood is in the ears of the hearer.
TD
Tom Deacon
<sd...@comcast.net> wrote:
Indeed.
And like most cults it usually lives under a rock.
TD
Steve Emerson
Wayne Reimer <wr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article <MPG.1ae904bdf...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, Wayne Reimer
> > <wrdsl<delete>@pacbell.net> says...
> I should add that I read a review of a concert he'd given just a few days
> earlier than the one you heard (on the 11th), [...]
Was that of the UC Berkeley concert? Where was the review?
Thx,
SE.
Tepperpotamus
> several Beethoven Bagatelles and op. 22, and Schubert's D850--my memory of
> this concert definitely contradicts the impressions of the original poster.
> There weren't many wrong notes at all, nor was there any hint that he was
> "disengaged". While it's unfortunate that you weren't satisfied with the
> performance you saw, I wouldn't hesitate to attend another of his concerts
> (and probably will in the next week or two when he appears in New York).
>
> Peter
Jesus Christ, can't you snip such long exchanges when you reply to them?
Wayne Reimer
Wayne Reimer
ineffectual these folks are.
wr
Wayne Reimer
barking, at nothing. Probably out of sheer boredom with himself.
wr
sam6...@earthlink.net
Dan Koren wrote:
> What "cult"?
>
> Saying "the emperor is naked" is no cult....
This is the oldest trick in the book of the fanatics. If their little
wooden idol doesn't impress you in the least, they call you a fanatic
for not responding to the Call.
regards,
SG
Tom Deacon
1oKgc.146$eZ5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, "sam6...@earthlink.net"
<sam6...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Not at all.
The answer is much simpler.
Deaf!
TD
Dan Koren
Your very expertise!
dk
Alan Watkins
> >> of errors.
> >
> >
> >Brendel was never an infallible pianist to begin with. He could play
> >piano at a certain level, but never anything above your
> >preparatory-class Juilliard guy.
> John
I cannot comment about Mr Brendel or his performance but I would just
like to point out that making errors comes with the business and,
after 40 years, I have never met either an infallible pianist or an
infallible musician but I am still actively seeking same.
I would also like to point out that in recordings there are also often
mistakes and passages have (sometimes) to be taken five or six times
before those involved can be heard to stop making errors or being
fallible (as the recording engineer/producer decides, or when the
money/time runs out as may be the case).
I cannot say about Juilliard but the problem I have personally found
with "preparatory-classes" is that they don't actually teach people
how to do it for a living and sometimes do not take into account
performance practice on account of being strangled by the "theory."
There are lots of artists correctly lauded upon here and I have heard
some of them make errors and, for a few of them, I have made errors
for them or played less well than I sometimes can.
I would humbly suggest that all of you could equally substitute Mr
Brendel's name for any other artist you like or admire. My experience
is that it is on the night but, regrettably, I never know which night.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Wayne Reimer
Koren can't hear what Brendel does because it just isn't part of his admittedly
narrow-bore response to music. There's nothing wrong with that any more than
there's something wrong with Brendel's famous antipathy towards Rachmaninov's
music. But since dk blames it on Brendel instead of seeing it as part of his
own makeup, it's like a red-green color-blind person blaming Pizarro for
painting boring pictures.
Samir would be rapturous over Brendel, if Brendel were dead 75 years and the
recordings he left were the aural equivalent of torn and faded daguerrotypes.
wr
sam6...@earthlink.net
Wayne Reimer wrote:
> Samir would be rapturous over Brendel, if Brendel were dead 75 years
I think this is the one expectation Brendel corresponds to beyond
expectations.
regards,
SG
P. S. I remember you having claimed that the recording of the Chopin
Preludes of a certain Russian pianist was not better than "amateur".
While I found it not only exemplarily professional, but also so much
more than professional, I believed in your sincerity, then. Reading now
all this apologetic non-sense about a sub-mediocre pianist, I don't know
what to believe anymore.
sam6...@earthlink.net
Wayne Reimer wrote:
> Koren can't hear what Brendel does because it just isn't part of his admittedly
> narrow-bore response to music.
Quite frankly, I still have to read anything from you which would
suggest your hearing is in any way superior to or the equal of DK's.
regards,
SG
Dan Koren
> > In article <BCA93CAA.1225%deac...@yahoo.com>, deac...@yahoo.com
says...
> > On 4/19/04 2:32 AM, in article
> > 1oKgc.146$eZ5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net,
"sam6...@earthlink.net"
> > <sam6...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan Koren wrote:
> > >
> > >> What "cult"?
> > >>
> > >> Saying "the emperor is naked" is no cult....
> > >
> > > This is the oldest trick in the book of the fanatics. If their little
> > > wooden idol doesn't impress you in the least, they call you a fanatic
> > > for not responding to the Call.
> >
> > Not at all.
> >
> > The answer is much simpler.
> >
> > Deaf!
> >
>
> Koren can't hear what Brendel does because it
> just isn't part of his admittedly narrow-bore
> response to music.
Same old leftist non-sense: if you don't like
something, that can only be because you don't
understand it. Right?
Get yourself a brain.
dk
Dan Koren
news:YR0hc.1215$eZ5....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Of course it is, because he can hear Brendel and
Perahia.
It's not his ears that are broken -- it's the
stuffing in between.
dk
Wayne Reimer
<...>
> Perahia.
>
Perahia is in my blind zone - he usually sounds to me like he's crocheting
doilies, not making music.
> It's not his ears that are broken -- it's the
> stuffing in between.
>
It's the same old rightist nonsense - if you can't understand it, it can't be
true. Basically, nobody else exists, per you lights, unless they see the world
exactly like you do.
wr
Larry Preuss
alanwa...@aol.com wrote on 4/19/04 10:29 PM:
Mr. Watkins, I so wish I had not appended that last insignificant comment
about errors to my much larger question. As you of course read, I wondered
if Mr. Brendel had been ill, because when I heard him he seemed detached
from his music and without emotion in his performance - this is not a
comment on his manner, but on the music as I heard him present it here in
Ann Arbor.
Tom Deacon
MPG.1aee3473...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net, "Wayne Reimer"
<wr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Samir would be rapturous over Brendel, if Brendel were dead 75 years and the
> recordings he left were the aural equivalent of torn and faded daguerrotypes.
Your discernment continues to garner my admiration, Wayne.
Golescu, along with the "band of brothers" at the almost completely defunct
Pianophiles Yahoo group, is a charter member of the Dead Pianist's Society.
If Golescu lives long enough - and we all hope and pray he does, of course -
Brendel will join that cast of strange characters in his pianistic Madame
Tussaud's.
TD
Tom Deacon
ZQ0hc.1208$eZ5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net,
"sam6...@earthlink.net" <sam6...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I don't know what to believe anymore.
That's all right, Samir. We are completely sympathetic.
Take a few aspirin and go to bed early. You'll feel better in the morning.
TD
Tom Deacon
There are small mercies in life.
One of them is that some of us at least have something between our ears.
Since you, apparently, don't, we can only offer you our deepest sympathies.
TD
Dan Koren
"Tom Deacon" <deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BCAA8C4C.13EB%deac...@yahoo.com...
He has already. He has been wax
fingered for a long time now.
dk
Dan Koren
Especially when the alternative
appears to be mooseshit.
dk
Dan Koren
At least there is no mooseshit between mine.
dk
sam6...@earthlink.net
Tom Deacon wrote:
> Your discernment continues to garner my admiration, Wayne.
Wayne, you have my unqualified envy.
regards,
SG
sam6...@earthlink.net
Dan Koren wrote:
> He has been wax fingered for a long time now.
Was? There is this spreading theory according to which the "magnificent"
touch of this pianist has become more sensitive since he's used thick
bandaids around the wooden fingertips.
regards,
SG
sam6...@earthlink.net
Dan Koren wrote:
> He has been wax fingered for a long time now.
Wax? There is the spreading theory according to which the "magnificent"
Lena
Hm. Is it necessary to have substandard stuffing to appreciate *some*
things that Brendel might try to do? And isn't it possible that one's
weighting of the contents of a particular piece matters a little in
pianist appreciation? If the answer is "no," one may stop right here.
:)
I don't actually like Brendel all that much, but not everything is a
disaster from my pov. (True, I haven't heard a lot by him.)
So far, in longer works, I've found him (generally speaking) either
staid or gimmicky or both. There seems to be a lot of emphasis on
minute coiffuring of all sorts of details, but simultaneously, the way
I hear it, the longer range aspects of music are allowed to go to pot.
(For example, his use of rubato is pretty strange at times. I think
that even in the fairly quirky Haydn sonatas - which should withstand
some "fantasy" - his rubato introduces too much stop-start into the
action, and can obscure the way phrases match each another. That last
thing is something I at least like to hear.)
But then I *have* heard him in short pieces where he does quite a good
job (IMO). (So, caricaturing, I'd say I don't trust Brendel in
anything that lasts longer than 2 minutes. :) But otherwise, I don't
rule him out!)
Lena
sam6...@earthlink.net
Lena wrote:
> I don't actually like Brendel all that much, but not everything is a
> disaster from my p.o.v.
Who could dispute such a whole-hearted compliment?
> I'd say I don't trust Brendel in
> anything that lasts longer than 2 minutes.
You must mean that this Leading Titan of the Untalented plays one mean
Fur Elise. (Even if the passage in thirty-seconds may have him stumble,
such frivolous mishapes are transcended by his being aware of the
metaphysical connotations of the modulation from A Minor to C Major and
. . . I forget, oh, yeah . . . and back.)
regards,
SG ( :
Matthew B. Tepper
typed in news:7jdhc.2226$eZ5....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Be careful -- the Trademark Police will be after you.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's Fault!
Alan Watkins
> Mr. Watkins, I so wish I had not appended that last insignificant comment
> about errors to my much larger question. As you of course read, I wondered
> if Mr. Brendel had been ill, because when I heard him he seemed detached
> from his music and without emotion in his performance - this is not a
> comment on his manner, but on the music as I heard him present it here in
> Ann Arbor.
I really do not have the slightest issue with you expressing your
personal disappointment for it is absolutely right that you should do
so. All I am trying to point out is that, sadly, music is an inexact
art and that sometimes the performance does not go "right". We all
wish it did (players, listeners) but I am afraid it simply does not
"happen" on some occasions.
If you ask any "performer" (whether singer, actor, musician,
entertainer of any type) why it went well on Tuesday and rather badly
on Thursday they are often at a loss to say why. I have not heard Mr
Brendel for years (although I thought him an excellent pianist when I
did hear him) but he is only human and may simply have had an "off
night".
However, I do realise how disappointing that is for an audience but it
is one of the risk elements of a live performance. I have seen opera
singers in tears backstage because they busted a key note on one night
after singing brilliantly for many others.
Peter Breskin
> On 4/16/04 4:50 AM, in article BCA516A1.126A6%LPr...@NocomNocast.net,
> "Larry Preuss" <LPr...@NocomNocast.net> wrote:
>
> > in article MPG.1ae904bdf...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net, Wayne
Reimer
> > @pacbell.net> at wrdsl<delete wrote on 4/16/04 12:45 AM:
> >
> >>> In article <BCA4B15C.1263C%LPr...@NocomNocast.net>,
LPr...@NocomNocast.net
> >>> says...
> >>> I heard Alfred Brendel play this evening, and was so terribly
disappointed
> >>> that I thought of coming here for some comments. The first half of the
> >>> concert was all Mozart: the Fantasia K. 396 and the sonatas K. 281 and
282.
> >>> After intermission he was to play Schubert and Beethoven, but I could
not
> >>> bring myself to stay for those pieces. He seemed disengaged, there was
no
> >>> joy in the Mozart, and his fingering did not have the crispness that I
have
> >>> been pleased with in many other performers. On top of this, he made a
number
> >>> of errors. I heard him here 26 years ago and remember it as a moving
> >>> experience. is he ill?
> >>> Larry
> >>>
> >> I have no idea of why you would be looking for anything in his playing
that
> >> would necessarily be found in other performers - why not just stick
with the
> >> other performers? As far as the errors are concerned, some performers,
> >> especially after they reach a certain age, have relatively little
concern for
> >> note-perfect performances. If this is an issue for you, perhaps you
should
> >> check on whether the performer you are going to hearing is one of these
> >> artists
> >> before you go. You can ask here, and I'm sure many of us would be
happy to
> >> fill you in. I certainly would have told you not to go hear Brendel,
had you
> >> asked, because he's been hitting clinkers with some frequency for a
long
> >> time.
> >> I barely notice them, myself. I find that pianists who don't hit wrong
notes
> >> sometimes make me feel edgy in a way that doesn't enhance my
experience; it's
> >> because their concern over the mechanics have outweighed the musical
ones
> >> that
> >> I'm interested in.
> >>
> >> wr
> >
> > Thank you for the reply. I had hoped my question would not be taken as a
> > complaint about a few misses: I sort of appended that observation. I
have
> > attended a regular series for 63 years and know something about what
happens
> > with age. Brendel was not involved with the music aspect of his music
last
> > night, and I wondered if there were a well-known circumstance not
well-known
> > to me. Segovia played here at 93 and was magnificent, despite a few
> > clinkers. I know that 26 years between hearings can make a huge
difference,
> > but I didn't notice such in musicians like Rubinstein, Hess, so I
thought I
> > would ask.
>
> It is good that you have elaborated on your years of listening, otherwise
I
> would have dismissed your comments entirely.
>
> Your post was a "red flag to the swine", of course, and they trotted out
> their habitual comments about Brendel, first Golescu (he could never play
> the piano, no tone, no this, no that) and then Koren.
>
> As an admirer of Brendel over the years I have noticed that on occasion he
> can "phone in" a performance. I heard one similar performance in Amsterdam
> in the middle of his Beethoven cycles. Just didn't seem to be engaged, as
> you said. But this has never been the rule. There have been so many
others -
> the complete Beethoven concerti in Vienna with Rattle (I doubt I shall
ever
> hear these works played as well in my lifetime), the best D minor Fantasy
by
> Mozart I have ever heard, a terrific Diabelli Variations in both Montreal
> and Vancouver. And so on. Sometimes there are some wrong notes. But never
> disturbingly so. Not at all in the manner of Rubinstein, who regularly got
> lost in Chopin's Ballades and just started to fabricate some generic
Chopin
> until he found his way again. This happens and not only to older
performers.
> Some young pianists seem accident prone as well.
>
> Then there is always the piano. In Montreal Brendel battled an old clinker
> which he should never have been asked to play. In Vancouver he was far
> better served by Steinway. In Europe Brendel usually has good instruments.
> In America, well, what can I say? Average at best. And often abysmal.
>
> I feel that you were quite wrong to have left the concert before the end.
> Brendel always has something interesting to say, particularly about
Schubert
> and Beethoven. And you will now never know. That's a pity.
>
> TD
>
> > I heard Brendel just last year at Carnegie Hall playing Mozart's K331,
> > several Beethoven Bagatelles and op. 22, and Schubert's D850--my memory
of
> > this concert definitely contradicts the impressions of the original
poster.
> > There weren't many wrong notes at all, nor was there any hint that he
was
> > "disengaged". While it's unfortunate that you weren't satisfied with
the
> > performance you saw, I wouldn't hesitate to attend another of his
concerts
> > (and probably will in the next week or two when he appears in New York).
> >
> > Peter
>
>
> Jesus Christ, can't you snip such long exchanges when you reply to them?
Sorry about that--I won't let it happen again.
Peter
Lena
> > I'd say I don't trust Brendel in
> > anything that lasts longer than 2 minutes.
(Just remarking mildly that that statement was a caricature and
followed by a smiley, so... :) )
> You must mean that this Leading Titan of the Untalented plays one mean
> Fur Elise. (Even if the passage in thirty-seconds may have him stumble,
> such frivolous mishapes are transcended by his being aware of the
> metaphysical connotations of the modulation from A Minor to C Major and
> . . . I forget, oh, yeah . . . and back.)
OK OK OK OK, I won't convert them all with my rampant Brendel
enthusiasm then... :)
I'll go relisten to his Beethoven Bagatelles just to see if I find a
lot of bandaid sounds.
Lena (stands wobblily by her original definitive, rocklike, and
unmovable statement that "Brendel is not a total disaster in
everything and anyway it all sort of depends on who's listening, you
know like sort of.")
sam6...@earthlink.net
Lena wrote:
>>>I'd say I don't trust Brendel in
>>>anything that lasts longer than 2 minutes.
>
> Lena:
> (Just remarking mildly that that statement was a caricature [...]
Oh, I see now what you were actually referring to in your statement. I
never knew you and the good Alfred were *that* close . . . (-;
regards,
SG
(P.S. Was Brad Pitt suddenly unavailable?? (-:)
Dan Koren
news:4b8442bf.04042...@posting.google.com...
No matter how one presents the issue,
the fact remains that Mr. Brendel is
much less than the titan of the piano
he has been painted to the gullible
public by the music marketing mafia.
He is at best a mediocre, uninteresting
pianist, without anything compelling or
original to say about the music.
At his worst, Mr. Brendel is arguably
the worst pianist currently practicing
before the public.
dk
Andy Evans
Ashkenazy but when young he could really play) on the same level - their
popularity in the UK is about equal over the last 30 years. As has been said
numerous times the level of popularity they enjoy seems a little out of
proportion, but I've heard a few good things from all three, though in some
cases only concerto recordings. Go back a bit further and the UK press lionised
Askenase as the best Chopin pianist of his time, Anda as the best Mozartian and
Vasary good at anything. Why? I've no idea. Now it's early music that the UK is
obsessed with. And so it goes.
=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
sam6...@earthlink.net
Andy Evans wrote:
> I don't know if people would roughly put Brendel, Kempff and Curzon (maybe add
> Ashkenazy but when young he could really play) on the same level [...]
Not me. When "on", Kempff could be something else. Not to mention that,
at his best, his masterful and delicate control of piano sonority(ies),
the many shades of pianissimo, his ability to make the piano sing as a
good lied singer.
regards,
SG
Van Eyes
> It sure is LOUD in these environs, though. But you're right about how tiny and
> ineffectual these folks are.
Brendel Chicago review--
http://www.suntimes.com/output/classical/cst-ftr-brendel22.html
Regards
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
sam6...@earthlink.net
Henk van Tuijl wrote:
> The problem I have with Brendel and Curzon is that most of their
> interpretations sound small scale.
Small scale both in outer (lack of) the grandiose and inner (lack of)
depth and variety. Among famous pianists, there are some who were as
introverted or small-scaled as anybody -- e.g., Haskil, Maryla Jonas,
Kempff,(at times even) Moiseiwitsch -- who made out of the exploration
of subnuances and extraordinarily supple micro-shaping of music a true
art. In Brendel's case, it's quite fascinating to see how his apologists
in the press use certain code words ("reigining intellectual pianist",
"serving music not serving himself" and the like), in truth suggesting
"his playing may be crappy but to get into the club one needs to pretend
it doesn't matter").
My favorite sentence in the last review quoted was this one:
"As Brendel's repertoire narrows, his philosophical slant has remained
undiminished."
Taking this apologetic non-sense to its inherently absurd consequences,
toward the bitter end audiences may be treated -- and "knowledgeable"
enthusiasm claimed from them -- with a (shakey) C Major scale, which
will presumably and magisterially reflect a synthesis of Plato, Spinoza,
Descartes, Leo Strauss, and Oprah.
regards,
SG
Tom Deacon
6VRhc.6981$e4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net,
"sam6...@earthlink.net" <sam6...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> My favorite sentence in the last review quoted was this one:
>
> "As Brendel's repertoire narrows, his philosophical slant has remained
> undiminished."
>
> Taking this apologetic non-sense to its inherently absurd consequences,
> toward the bitter end audiences may be treated -- and "knowledgeable"
> enthusiasm claimed from them -- with a (shakey) C Major scale, which
> will presumably and magisterially reflect a synthesis of Plato, Spinoza,
> Descartes, Leo Strauss, and Oprah.
Ridicule aside, and let's admit it, we do put such ridiculous remarks in the
trash fairly quickly, it would have behooved Mr. Golescu to climb out from
underneath his rock in Urbana, make his way to Chicago and actually hear
Alfred Brendel in the recital which was praised by the local critic cited by
Van Eyes.
Instead, he just continues to spew remarks which reek of jealousy, envy,
resentment, as well as a very blinkered notion of what it is to make music.
Fortunately the trash bin is close, but Chicago would also have been close.
Perhaps Golescu should give his ears a treat the next time Brendel deigns to
grace the windy city.
TD
sam6...@earthlink.net
Dan Koren wrote:
> No matter how one presents the issue,
> the fact remains that Mr. Brendel is
> much less than the titan of the piano
> he has been painted to the gullible
> public by the music marketing mafia.
You must be envious!! Funny though you don't feel any envy for Cohen,
Moravec, and the dozens of other pianists who play better with their
left toes than the titan with his ten thumbs!
> He is at best a mediocre, uninteresting
> pianist, without anything compelling or
> original to say about the music.
That surely sums it up.
> At his worst, Mr. Brendel is arguably
> the worst pianist currently practicing
> before the public.
Well, practice makes perfect. One way or the other.
regards,
SG
Dan Koren
<sam6...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6VRhc.6981$e4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Isn't that precisely what Brendel and Perahia do?
dk
arri bachrach
right about Kempff..incredible musician. His ability to "talk" on the
piano far exceeded almost any lieder singer I have heard or
accompanied on the piano..SFAIAC, the musical abilities of lieder
singers and singers in general are greatly exaggerated with the
exception of a few really special greats like Callas, Baker,
Schiotz.....
AB
A. Brain
news:6VRhc.6981$e4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
What's troubling me about the review is that I don't
understand all the technical terminology. I think I
understand "flash". What are
"devo trappings"?
Seriously, what is Brendel's problem more precisely?
Lack of color, prissiness, ltmsfi, etc.?
I don't have too many recordings of Brendel,
but I recall having some on Vox LPs years ago,
notably some Schubert, that I liked a lot.
What's a good example of some really bad
Brendel on CD?
--
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.
Van Eyes
http://www.concertonet.com/scripts/review.php?ID_review=2397
Henk van Tuijl
<sam6...@earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
news:6VRhc.6981$e4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<g>
Who wouldn't love to hear a pianist who uses Mozart as a vehicle for
Plato, Schubert for Spinoza, Haydn for Descartes, Beethoven for Strauss
and the rest of his repertoire for Oprah and Dr. Phil?
I'll have to put him on my to buy list!!
Henk
sam6...@earthlink.net
A. Brain wrote:
> What's a good example of some really bad Brendel on CD?
Little that I know of. One would need brilliance to achieve that. If you
want an example of really bad Gould or Pogorelich on CD, one should be
able to find some easily. On the other hand, utter mediocrity can't be
"really bad".
However, if "really bad" means for you not shocking or revolting, but
simply forgettable, placid, flaccid, and rigid, go no further than the
first movement of the opus 27 no 2 Sonata, in the case of which the
existence of innumerable great performances of the work renders this
instrumentalist's inability to play anything in a memorable way even
more striking. It's not like I had the patience to ever listen to all
the Brendel Beethoven cycles -- which a parasitic and paralyzed
recording industry produced one after another in numbers greater than
reason could account for -- but you could hear how badly played that
famous movement can be even in the first, Vox cycle.
regards,
SG
David Hurwitz
I'm not as down on Brendel as you are, but I think his Haydn sonatas are pretty
terrible--all the humor and wit turned into a sort of smarmy, self-regarding
archness of expression combined with some really amazingly ugly piano tone. This
isn't blandness or mediocrity: it's active dreadfulness.
Dave Hurwitz
Henk van Tuijl
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> schreef in bericht
news:92747227.0...@drn.newsguy.com...
> I'm not as down on Brendel as you are, but I think his Haydn sonatas
are pretty
> terrible--all the humor and wit turned into a sort of smarmy,
self-regarding
> archness of expression combined with some really amazingly ugly piano
tone. This
> isn't blandness or mediocrity: it's active dreadfulness.
You just don't like his Descartes ...
Henk
Tom Deacon
van Tuijl" <hvt...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
It's not Descartes, Henk, or the active dreadfulness. It's the dreaded
stop-watch.
Some people, you know, are born to spend their lives in a police car,
waiting by the side of the road to check the speed of on-coming cars. It is
the only way they feel fulfilled.
How they ever found their way into music is just one of those imponderables.
TD
Dan Koren
news:d37c0ba6e0723e5a194...@mygate.mailgate.org...
Hhmmm.... Brendel performing at the Y...
It must be something worth watching....
dk
Wayne Reimer
> <sam6...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:6VRhc.6981$e4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
>
> Seriously, what is Brendel's problem more precisely?
> Lack of color, prissiness, ltmsfi, etc.?
>
listeners. There are many, I think most, artists who just don't record well,
and oftentimes the best of what they have to give is just not there in the
recording. I've really never heard a Brendel recording that projects very well
one of the main things that captivates me in what he does. That is an uncanny
sense that, with him at the keyboard, the music can speak directly to the
listener. Sorry to get technical on you, but what he does is most easily
described as a vast extension of a musical expression occasionally seen in a
score: it's "parlando", which means "as if talking". It's a special effect
meant to show that the performer should make the phrase it applies to sound as
if spoken. Brendel has taken that idea and applied it to entire Beethoven
sonatas, albeit with a lot of subtlety. The upshot is that he can make those
sonatas seem like Beethoven is talking directly to you. It can be spooky if
you think about it, to be honest.
It requires some pretty attentive, unbiased listening to "get it" with Brendel,
but once you do, a whole world opens up. The problem for a lot of folks is
that they just never listen that closely, can't even imagine it. Most pianists
know that, and to some extent, force feed the listener. Brendel is a rarity in
that he lets the listener take it or leave it. If the listener doesn't pay
enough attention, Brendel's the most boring major pianist around.
wr
sam6...@earthlink.net
Wayne Reimer wrote:
> The problem is really not Brendel's - it is the recordings and/or the
> listeners. There are many, I think most, artists who just don't record well,
> and oftentimes the best of what they have to give is just not there in the
> recording.
Funny. I've heard him live too (only twice and I wouldn't repeat the
experience) and he's more atrocious in the concert hall than on record.
For one thing, he succeeds in producing sonorities which are in the same
time tiny, ugly, and bland, which is a performance not to sneer about.
> If the listener doesn't pay
> enough attention, Brendel's the most boring major pianist around.
That's true. The problem is that paying attention is of a nature to make
it even (much) worse.
regards,
SG
sam6...@earthlink.net
David Hurwitz wrote:
>>However, if "really bad" means for you not shocking or revolting, but
>>simply forgettable, placid, flaccid, and rigid, go no further than the
>>first movement of the opus 27 no 2 Sonata, in the case of which the
>>existence of innumerable great performances of the work renders this
>>instrumentalist's inability to play anything in a memorable way even
>>more striking. It's not like I had the patience to ever listen to all
>>the Brendel Beethoven cycles -- which a parasitic and paralyzed
>>recording industry produced one after another in numbers greater than
>>reason could account for -- but you could hear how badly played that
>>famous movement can be even in the first, Vox cycle.
>
>
> I'm not as down on Brendel as you are, but I think his Haydn sonatas are pretty
> terrible--all the humor and wit turned into a sort of smarmy, self-regarding
> archness of expression combined with some really amazingly ugly piano tone. This
> isn't blandness or mediocrity: it's active dreadfulness.
I stand corrected and guilty of "misunderestimation".
regards,
SG
Tom Deacon
MPG.1af383c7e...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net, "Wayne Reimer"
<wr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
A nice description of the Brendel effect, Wayne.
Personally, I also "get" this from his recordings.
But you are quite right; you really do have to pay attention.
And to determine the quality of a pianist from a 40-year old recording on
the Vox label of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata (which Golescu admitted to a
few posts back) is more than dishonest; it is a completely fraudulent
approach to music.
Moreover, I am highly amused by the lame attempts by a few Brendel
nay-sayers to discredit this musician. It seems to me that they protest too
much, revealing more about their own limitations as listeners than they do
about Brendel himself.
TD
Tom Deacon
t0nic.9751$e4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net,
"sam6...@earthlink.net" <sam6...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Funny. I've heard him live too (only twice )
If that does not cause one to discount the opinions of this poster, I really
don't know what will.
TD
Henk van Tuijl
"Tom Deacon" <deac...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:BCAF24FB.16FD%deac...@yahoo.com...
David Hurwitz is right about Brendel's piano tone, Tom.
A great pianist should have a great tone. This is often not the case in
Brendel's interpretations. Compared with for example Volodos Brendel's
pianism sounds clumsy - to say the least.
Nor do I always hear the philosophy behind his interpretations. His views
on Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms and Schubert are not really revolutionary.
Henk
David Hurwitz
>It's not Descartes, Henk, or the active dreadfulness. It's the dreaded
>stop-watch.
>
>Some people, you know, are born to spend their lives in a police car,
>waiting by the side of the road to check the speed of on-coming cars. It is
>the only way they feel fulfilled.
>
>How they ever found their way into music is just one of those imponderables.
>
>TD
>
Gee Tom, I don't believe I mentioned timings as one of the objectionable
qualities of Brendel's Haydn.
Dave Hurwitz
arri bachrach
> stop-watch.
>
> Some people, you know, are born to spend their lives in a police car,
> waiting by the side of the road to check the speed of on-coming cars. It is
> the only way they feel fulfilled.
>
> How they ever found their way into music is just one of those imponderables.
>
> TD
Tom,
you had better be careful when asking that kind of question....
someone just might ask that about you :-)
AB
Tom Deacon
"Henk van Tuijl" <hvt...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> A great pianist should have a great tone.
Says who?
You seem to have fallen prey to the "beautiful sounds" school, Henk. You
should know better.
Music is not made of beautiful sounds. It is made of phrases, "speaking"
tone, vocalizing at the keyboard.
The same idiots who drone on about "beautiful sounds" also loathe Maria
Callas, who never thought for a moment about such trivial things. She was
interested in emotion, drama, pain, suffering, joy, all the emotions one
feels in music.
Beauty of sound gives you Jorge Bolet.
Or Vollofshit.
TD
Tom Deacon
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>I don't believe I mentioned timings as one of the objectionable
> qualities of Brendel's Haydn.
You don't have to. You ARE a stop-watch.
TD
Tom Deacon
904130a9.04042...@posting.google.com, "arri bachrach"
<abac...@att.net> wrote:
>> Some people, you know, are born to spend their lives in a police car,
>> waiting by the side of the road to check the speed of on-coming cars. It is
>> the only way they feel fulfilled.
>>
>> How they ever found their way into music is just one of those imponderables.
>>
>> TD
>
> Tom,
>
> you had better be careful when asking that kind of question....
> someone just might ask that about you :-)
That would be nothing new.
Thing is, Arri, that so far I have seen nothing to justify their existence
in the business.
Have you?
If so, please point to it.
TD
David Hurwitz
>
>On 4/24/04 10:22 AM, in article 408a7801$0$571$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl,
>"Henk van Tuijl" <hvt...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> A great pianist should have a great tone.
>
>Says who?
>
>You seem to have fallen prey to the "beautiful sounds" school, Henk. You
>should know better.
>
As usual when you drop into attack mode, your conclusions arise from the willful
caricature of the position that you are attacking. Mr. van Tuijl did not say "a
great tone over and above all other qualities." He merely suggested that "a
great tone" is one of the attributes of greatness. This strikes me as
undeniable. If you told Maria Callas that you loved her despite her ugly voice,
she'd have slapped you in the face, and rightly so. Obviously standards of
beauty will differ in these matters, but you would be on firmer ground trying to
explain what (if anything) about Brendel's art renders a purported
"conventional" ideal of beauty irrelevant than in denying a statement that I
suspect most anyone but you would regard as reasonable on its face.
Dave Hurwitz
Wayne Reimer
<...>
>
> David Hurwitz is right about Brendel's piano tone, Tom.
>
> A great pianist should have a great tone.
That's like saying a great actor should be good-looking. It's irrelevant in
most cases that matter, although there are times when it would make a
difference. I've no doubt that, had he thought it was musically worth it,
Brendel could and would have cultivated a pretty sound. But then, he doesn't
play composers who were deeply concerned with presenting pretty and/or alluring
surfaces, i.e., Chopin, Debussy, Ravel, Scriabin, Rachmaninoff. I happen to
love the music he doesn't care for or play, but that doesn't need to get in the
way of my appreciation for what he does.
> This is often not the case in
> Brendel's interpretations. Compared with for example Volodos Brendel's
> pianism sounds clumsy - to say the least.
>
> Nor do I always hear the philosophy behind his interpretations. His views
> on Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms and Schubert are not really revolutionary.
>
I'm curious - where did the idea that Brendel might be doing something
revolutionary come from? He just seems far more probing of the music he
chooses to play than most, it seems to me, and has developed a style of playing
that allows him to project a lot of his thinking about the music he plays.
The most revolutionary thing about him I can think of is his espousal of Liszt
as a genuinely serious composer back in a time when few did so. By the way,
his recording of a group of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies is quite wonderful
(and should be essential to anyone interested in that music) and is not at all
what you'd expect. They are airy, witty, full of puckish good spirits (and his
tone is perfectly fine in them).
wr
sam6...@earthlink.net
Wayne Reimer wrote:
>>A great pianist should have a great tone.
>
> That's like saying a great actor should be good-looking.
What an abysmally inadequate analogy. It is actually more like saying
that a great actor's physiognomy should emanate inner beauty when the
character he's embodying possesses such beauty.
The very implication that the requirement of having [not necessarily an
always round but] "a great (memorable, individual, diversified,
beautiful when necessary) tone" would be a shallow matter testifies to a
terrible misunderstanding of the nature of music as (not *only*, but
*also*) defined by sound.
regards,
SG
Wayne Reimer
Smear Golescu kindly points out to us that, when confronted with actual live
music-making by a living master, he hasn't got a clue and doesn't even know how
to listen. His generosity in letting us know this should be appreciated - it's
rather sweet of him to admit his failings here in front of everyone like that.
Maybe he thinks rmcr is some sort of meeting place for a 12-step program for
the musically helpless/hapless/hopeless?
I do pity his students, however (assuming there are some). It is always
possible though, that even with his apparently damaged ear/brain functions, he
can still offer reasonably competent training in keyboard mechanics.
wr
sam6...@earthlink.net
Wayne Reimer wrote with Deaconic elegance:
> Maybe he thinks rmcr is some sort of meeting place for a 12-step program for
> the musically helpless/hapless/hopeless?
That's why you're hanging in here? You can always hope, of course.
regards,
SG
sam6...@earthlink.net
Wayne Reimer wrote:
> Sorry to get technical on you, but what he does is most easily
> described as a vast extension of a musical expression occasionally seen in a
> score: it's "parlando", which means "as if talking".
Gosh, this gentleman actually thinks that he needs to apologize for
"getting technical", with banalities as trite as to make the word
"sophomoric" seem woefully over-sophisticated in defining them.
regards,
SG
sam6...@earthlink.net
Wayne Reimer:
<<I've no doubt that, had he thought it was musically worth it,
Brendel could and would have cultivated a pretty sound.>>
(Yeah, sure. And if she "thought it was musically worth it", my
grandmother would have gotten a voice.)
What an amusing conceptual poverty in defining complex parameters of
sound production, as required by the potential palette of a performing
musician. "Pretty" versus "ugly". Nothing in the between. Who is not
with the "ugly" is with the "pretty". The "shallow virtuosi" choose
pretty, the "deep musicians" choose ugly. How original. How subtle. How
very insightful. Rmcr is a place of learning indeed.
<<But then, he doesn't play composers who were deeply concerned with
presenting pretty and/or alluring surfaces, i.e., Chopin, Debussy,
Ravel, Scriabin, Rachmaninoff>>
In one strike, any thoughtful characterization is denied to both the
so-called "serious" composers -- you see, in Beethoven or Schubert
sonority-related requirements would have no place, or almost no place
--, and to the great Romantic/post-Romantic/Impressionist composers --
for whom the "pretty surfaces" characterization is fished out of
nowhere. A quite simplistic -- not to mention baseless -- dichotomy the
worth of which every reader can judge for himself.
regards,
SG
sam6...@earthlink.net
David Hurwitz wrote:
> As usual when you drop into attack mode, your conclusions arise from the willful
> caricature of the position that you are attacking. Mr. van Tuijl did not say "a
> great tone over and above all other qualities." He merely suggested that "a
> great tone" is one of the attributes of greatness. This strikes me as
> undeniable. If you told Maria Callas that you loved her despite her ugly voice,
> she'd have slapped you in the face, and rightly so. Obviously standards of
> beauty will differ in these matters, but you would be on firmer ground trying to
> explain what (if anything) about Brendel's art renders a purported
> "conventional" ideal of beauty irrelevant than in denying a statement that I
> suspect most anyone but you would regard as reasonable on its face.
Well, it's been a great show. The winning argumentative construct of Mr.
Deacon's most emulatory disciple (Mr. Reimer) stands on three solid legs
-- a testimony to Mr. Reimer's unerring judgment and high standards of
logical reasoning:
1) instrumental sonority doesn't count;
2) even if sonority did count for something, it still wouldn't count for
anything, or for much, in Serious German music (as opposed to that
"Pretty Surfaces" rest of the music);
3) Organically connected to the above and corroborating it in every
single aspect, any disagreeing poster must have been recruited, on his
Bar Mitzvah, as a KGB colonel, by Yuri Andropov, personally.
Corollary: therefore Alfred Brendel is the one musical ventriloquist
through whose humble services Ludwig van Beethoven's voice is expressed
unaltered. In -- here the real revelation came about -- a "parlando", a.
k. a. "speaking" manner (excuse us for getting a bit over-technical on
you). Quod erat demonstrandum. Case settled.
There's no surrealism like our funny group's surrealism.
regards,
SG
Dave Hurwitz
>There's no surrealism like our funny group's surrealism.
>
>regards,
>SG
>
You can say that again!
Dave Hurwitz
David Hurwitz
>That's like saying a great actor should be good-looking. It's irrelevant in
>most cases that matter, although there are times when it would make a
>difference. I've no doubt that, had he thought it was musically worth it,
>Brendel could and would have cultivated a pretty sound. But then, he doesn't
>play composers who were deeply concerned with presenting pretty and/or alluring
>surfaces, i.e., Chopin, Debussy, Ravel, Scriabin, Rachmaninoff. I happen to
>love the music he doesn't care for or play, but that doesn't need to get in the
>way of my appreciation for what he does.
There is absolutely no reason why you should not be able to appreciate whatever
Brendel brings to the composers that he plays; but to say that those composers
were not deeply concerned with presenting pretty or allluring surfaces qualifies
as this week's rmcr Really Stupid Remark. Where, dear boy, is the evidence for
that in Haydn, Schubert, Beethoven, Mozart (!), or Liszt? And even if we accept
your silly contention as accurate, perhaps you might explain how these composers
are actually harmed by an interpretation that brings to bear not just "beauty"
but "truth" AS WELL, which is exactly Mr. van Tuijl's point.
>
>> This is often not the case in
>> Brendel's interpretations. Compared with for example Volodos Brendel's
>> pianism sounds clumsy - to say the least.
>>
>> Nor do I always hear the philosophy behind his interpretations. His views
>> on Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms and Schubert are not really revolutionary.
>>
>I'm curious - where did the idea that Brendel might be doing something
>revolutionary come from? He just seems far more probing of the music he
>chooses to play than most, it seems to me, and has developed a style of playing
>that allows him to project a lot of his thinking about the music he plays.
>The most revolutionary thing about him I can think of is his espousal of Liszt
>as a genuinely serious composer back in a time when few did so. By the way,
>his recording of a group of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies is quite wonderful
>(and should be essential to anyone interested in that music) and is not at all
>what you'd expect. They are airy, witty, full of puckish good spirits (and his
>tone is perfectly fine in them).
>
In other words, those performances have pretty surfaces and treat the music in
idiomatic fashion, and there is nothing "revolutionary" about them at all. What
fine performance of these works does NOT espouse these qualities? As I said
before, I am not in any sense anti-Brendel in principle, but when his tone is
hideous, as it often is, or when he behaves like the Elisabeth Schwarzkopf of
the piano interpretively speaking (at least her tone was NEVER hideous) in music
that cries out for basic musical virtues of tone and technique, we might as well
say so. Surely not everything any artist does is wonderful. Brendel's reputation
speaks for itself: evidently he pleases enough people in the music he plays to
warrant the reputation he has. I enjoy some of his Liszt, Mozart, Schubert, and
Weber as well.
But the guy's got technical and timbral problems, and his self-indulgence in
re-recording the same repertoire on multiple occasions without betraying any
substantive reason (interpretively speaking) why the remake is justified is
typical of just one of the ways in which the recording industry, and the major
labels especially, have squandered their resources and clogged the bins with
pointless duplication. It has allowed artists like Brendel to define themselves
almost entirely in terms of interpretive trivialities and minutiae--the "see,
I'm so profound that every new thought about the music no matter how small
justifies a brand new Beethoven sonata cycle" approach. Granted, it isn't for
the artist to decide such things--the ones with sufficient self-discipline in
this regard will always be few and far between, and if Mr. Deacon is any
indication we all know how hopeless it is to expect any sort of similar wisdom
from the recording industry.
It's therefore entirely appropriate for music lovers with a wider perspective to
listen and compare with an ear to seeing if Brendel's current position in the
artistic pantheon is deserved. It's a healthy conversation, but not one
especially well served by declaring that the COMPOSERS would not have and did
not require those qualities in which Brendel is so signally (by general consent)
deficient. Deacon has compared him to Maria Callas; you mention a handsome
actor. Both are foolish examples. Callas had a superb technique (which Brendel
does not) and a voice that was always capable of exquisite colors; at certain
times the voice would not cooperate and eventually it wore out completely, but
the technique and artistry never deserted her even if the tone quality sometimes
did, and she pinned her colors to the mast of "bel canto" insisting that
truthfulness of expression by achieved THROUGH beauty of tone and consummate
technique. She also single-handedly revived a vast, neglected repertoire,
completely altering the traditional view of it and irrevocably changing the
history of opera in the 20th century to the inestimable benefit of Western
culture. Brendel is not remotely comparable in any of these aspects. The world
of music would be none the worse without him; not a single composer that he
performs "needs" him, nor has he discovered anything new or
"revolutionary"--even in Liszt, who has always had performers supportive of his
more "serious" claims to musical greatness--Richter, for example, or Claudio
Arrau, or Zoltan Kocsis, all of whom bring (at the very least) as much insight
to bear as does Brendel (I would say much more) along with the great technique
and wonderful tone he lacks.
As for your "handsome actor," analogy, the only person saying that a great actor
should be "good looking" is you. Great actors must look like whatever the role
they play demands of them, and just about anything can be done with make up and
costume. If Brendel would apply the proper make-up to his performances of
Beethoven's Fourth Piano Concerto or a Mozart Piano Sonata I assure you I would
overlook the fact that he resembles Woody Allen on a bad hair day in all other
respects. And if you told Beethoven and Mozart that their music is so profound
that beauty of tone isn't important, they'd spit in your face, and rightly so.
The entire "beauty vs. truth" dichotomy is nothing more than a tired cliché that
reinforces the artificial nationalistic prejudices of 19th century musical
partisans. It has no bearing on what the composers thought or what their music
requires, and the extent to which Brendel subscribes to this notion (if he
seriously does) reveals just how intellectually shallow his perspective really
is.
Dave Hurwitz
Henk van Tuijl
"Wayne Reimer" <wr...@pacbell.net> schreef in bericht
news:MPG.1af4fa18e...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> > In article <408a7801$0$571$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
hvt...@xs4all.nl says...
> <...>
> >
> > David Hurwitz is right about Brendel's piano tone, Tom.
> >
> > A great pianist should have a great tone.
>
> That's like saying a great actor should be good-looking. It's
irrelevant in
> most cases that matter, although there are times when it would make a
> difference.
You have certainly a point. It largely depends on how we define "great".
The least one can say about it is that a great tone doesn't diminish the
communicative qualities of an interpretation.
> I've no doubt that, had he thought it was musically worth it,
> Brendel could and would have cultivated a pretty sound. But then, he
doesn't
> play composers who were deeply concerned with presenting pretty and/or
alluring
> surfaces, i.e., Chopin, Debussy, Ravel, Scriabin, Rachmaninoff. I
happen to
> love the music he doesn't care for or play, but that doesn't need to
get in the
> way of my appreciation for what he does.
I have the impression that Brendel is unable to play his Mozart,
Beethoven an d Schubert these days in such a way that it also _sounds_
interesting. There is no relation between the fidgeting and grimacing I
see and the sounds I hear.
> > This is often not the case in
> > Brendel's interpretations. Compared with for example Volodos
Brendel's
> > pianism sounds clumsy - to say the least.
> >
> > Nor do I always hear the philosophy behind his interpretations. His
views
> > on Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms and Schubert are not really
revolutionary.
>
> I'm curious - where did the idea that Brendel might be doing something
> revolutionary come from? He just seems far more probing of the music
he
> chooses to play than most, it seems to me, and has developed a style of
playing
> that allows him to project a lot of his thinking about the music he
plays.
Well, a new book on Plato once was called philology, not philosophy,
unless ... So Brendel is a philologist. I have the impression that this
goes for every capable pianist who plays the standard repertoire. No one
is programming a Beethoven sonata these days without the intention to
tell something interesting - if not new - about it.
> The most revolutionary thing about him I can think of is his espousal
of Liszt
> as a genuinely serious composer back in a time when few did so. By the
way,
> his recording of a group of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies is quite
wonderful
> (and should be essential to anyone interested in that music) and is not
at all
> what you'd expect. They are airy, witty, full of puckish good spirits
(and his
> tone is perfectly fine in them).
I am in complete agreement. Liszt does exceptionally well precisely
thanks to Brendel's ascetic approach. There is a lot of humour in Liszt
that no one else ever seemed to have noticed it - with the exception of
Richter in Liszt's second Valse Oubliee.
Contrary to David Hurwitz I usually also like Brendel's Haydn. He has
indeed something with humour and understatement.
Henk
Tom Deacon
b_Iic.8644$eZ5....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net,
"sam6...@earthlink.net" <sam6...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The very implication that the requirement of having [not necessarily an
> always round but] "a great (memorable, individual, diversified,
> beautiful when necessary) tone" would be a shallow matter testifies to a
> terrible misunderstanding of the nature of music as (not *only*, but
> *also*) defined by sound.
There is no argument here, just a statement of opinion.
Of course the "beautiful tone" school is an extremely hard case to make.
TD
Tom Deacon
MPG.1af503a0d...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net, "Wayne Reimer"
<wr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
It is easy to pity the students of more than a couple of so-called
"teachers" who participate in this forum. You have rightly described the
plight of Golescu's annointed victims, but one might also pity those of The
Floridian Maiden, who lingers incessantly on fingerings as the fount of all
musical wisdom, and our friend Harper, who seems to be incapable of teaching
a basic course in civics.
The mind simply boggles.
Coincidentally, all three are supporters of Dubya Bush.
Are we surprised?
TD
Tom Deacon
6QJic.8659$eZ5....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net,
"sam6...@earthlink.net" <sam6...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I know it's hard, Golescu, but you might learn something if you tried really
hard.
Since you're not even a sophmore yet (still and forever a "freshie", as we
can read), I don't think it is right for you to be putting down your elders.
TD
Tom Deacon
van Tuijl" <hvt...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> "Tom Deacon" <deac...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
> news:BCB08805.17BB%deac...@yahoo.com...
>> On 4/24/04 10:22 AM, in article 408a7801$0$571$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl,
>> "Henk van Tuijl" <hvt...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> A great pianist should have a great tone.
>>
>> Says who?
>
> Well, Tom, as you know I usually speak for myself - also in this case.
> Most great pianists I know do have a great tone. I find it difficult to
> call a pianist great when there is nothing characteristic about her or
> his tone. One example is Pascal Roge. He is an excellent pianist and a
> great musician but I find it very difficult to listen to him - from his
> very first Liszt LP on.
>
>> You seem to have fallen prey to the "beautiful sounds" school, Henk.
> You
>> should know better.
>
> I agree with you that I tend to like a beautiful tone. Cherkassky,
> Moiseiwitsch, Volodos and many other pianists I can listen to merely
> because of their tone. On the other hand, I am aware of the difference
> between a great and a beautiful tone. Horowitz did have a great tone -
> not just a beautiful one.
Perhaps one might say that Horowitz didn't have a beautiful tone at all. His
sound had too much edge to be beautiful
Horowitz is a kind of Callas of the keyboard.
>
>> Music is not made of beautiful sounds. It is made of phrases,
> "speaking"
>> tone, vocalizing at the keyboard.
>
> I agree with you that music is not merely about beautiful sounds. There
> is much more to it. An intepretation should be at least "communicative" -
> and ugly sounds may make a meaningful difference (i.e. when the ugliness
> is not merely noise).
>
>> The same idiots who drone on about "beautiful sounds" also loathe Maria
>> Callas, who never thought for a moment about such trivial things. She
> was
>> interested in emotion, drama, pain, suffering, joy, all the emotions
> one
>> feels in music.
>
> I agree with you about Callas. She had a great voice, not merely a
> beautiful one.
In fact, she had a rather ugly voice. Not beautiful at all.
She knew how to communicate. On the other hand, in those
> days I did like Renata Tebaldi too.
The Tebaldi-Callas rivalry was one I lived through. And Callas won, hands
down. Tebaldi is now a forgotten singer known for luscious sounds. And that,
I am afraid, is all.
There is more to emotion than
> following in Oedipus' footsteps and being blinded by one's own act.
>
>> Beauty of sound gives you Jorge Bolet.
>
> His sound is indeed one of Bolet's qualities. BTW, he is one of the great
> mysteries of the last century for me. I cannot understand why I don't
> appreciate him more.
I understand perfectly. He only gives you beautiful sound.
Just try, if you want to be perverse, Bolet playing, say, Op. 101 of
Beethoven, or even Op. 53. (He didn't record it, but you can hear what it
might have sounded like by listening to Hofmann, of course)
>
>> Or Vollofshit.
>
> <g> Tom, you and Dan are becoming each others' mirror image - only at
> first sight, of course ...
I will admit, Henk, a cheap shot. But one the equivalent of Brendull, don't
you think? Or Monsterfat Caballe? Opera lovers are the bitchiest of all, of
course.
> I agree with you that Volodos has a beautiful tone. He also has an almost
> unlimited technique.
Which resulted in him dropping tons of wrong notes in his ENCORES a t the
Concertgebouw a few years back.
"Unlimited" you say? I don't think so. You need MAH for that.
> It is true that there are those who question his musicianship. As far as
> I know them, these critics are the same people who are either seeking
> refuge in contemporary music or are teaching students who cannot even
> play two Chopin Etudes in a row without making a mess of at least one of
> them.
I don't belong to either camp, Henk, and I have to say I have not heard a
more boring pianist in my lifetime.
No, not even Jorg Demus or Philippe Entremont.
> Of course, this doesn't mean that I like everything Volodos does. I don't
> like his interpretation of the Kreisleriana at all, for example. On the
> other hand, I cannot deny that he is one of the great living pianists at
> the moment.
You may not be able to. But I will. And he isn't "living"; he was
still-born.
> Who else do we have? There are Berezovsky, Lugansky, Kissin and Volodos
> from Russia, there are Aimard and Guy from France, there is Andsness from
> Scandinavia, there is Von Eckardstein from Germany, there are Lang Lang
> and Yundi Li from China, there is Lim from Korea, ...
Your list is an eccentric one, Henk, but of course it's yours. Certainly not
mine.
Lugansky? You have to be joking.
> BTW, what happened to Pompa Baldi, the only finalist of the Cliburn
> competition I did like?
I haven't the foggiest idea.
TD
>
Bob Harper
> It is easy to pity the students of more than a couple of so-called
> "teachers" who participate in this forum. You have rightly described the
> plight of Golescu's annointed victims, but one might also pity those of The
> Floridian Maiden, who lingers incessantly on fingerings as the fount of all
> musical wisdom, and our friend Harper, who seems to be incapable of teaching
> a basic course in civics.
>
> The mind simply boggles.
>
> Coincidentally, all three are supporters of Dubya Bush.
>
> Are we surprised?
>
> TD
>
Gosh, I feel honored. To be included in TD's clueless rantings with such
obviously intelligent and capable people as Samir and Gerrie makes my day.
Bob Harper
Bob Lombard
wrote:
I realize it's going to unmake your day, but personal overweening
pride forces me to point out that TD has also grouped _moi_ with that
duo. Even realizing that, though TD may not be clueless, he must be
under-clued, I became light-headed with euphoria when I read that
post. Well, maybe it wasn't euphoria.
bl
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:7ppn80pqiast3o6bp...@4ax.com:
What about yours truly, who has sworn to vote against, at any time, in any
place, anybody named Bush, except possibly for Alan (say if my opinion were
sought for a Hall of Fame of British Composers)?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's fault!