Most authoritative Hammerklavier?
Mason Verger
Ivailo Partchev
"Mason Verger" <mason_...@skincare.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:i8H7a.41511$_J5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
notrump15-17
"Mason Verger" <mason_...@skincare.com> wrote in message
news:i8H7a.41511$_J5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
John Thomas
-John Thomas
Simon Roberts
>
>Richter, Pollini, Ashkenazy, O'Conor?
>
What does "authoritative" mean in this context?
If you're simply interested in a list of favorite recordings, Ashkenazy and
O'Connor would be nowhere near mine. Yudina (hers is by far my favorite iii),
Sokolov, Gulda/Amadeo, Gilels, Peter Serkin (his fortepiano recording, not the
Steinway remake), Pollini, maybe Richter, and a few others would.
Simon
Sol L. Siegel
>> Richter, Pollini, Ashkenazy, O'Conor?
> Schnabel, Sokolov, Gilels, Rosen.
Schnabel has too much trouble with the opening movement. Too many
others try too much to "interpret" the work instead of actually playing it
(because they can't?). Rosen seems to get most of it. So does
Beveridge Webster on a Dover LP from the Sixties (does the master
tape even exist today?).
-Sol Siegel, Philadelphia, PA
--------------------
"I am sure of very little, and I shouldn't be surprised if those things were
wrong." - Clarence Darrow
--------------------
(Remove "dammspam" from the end of my e-mail address to respond.)
Sonarrat
Tweedle, Deedle, Dum.
-Sonarrat.
Brian Cantin
Gilels.
--
Brian Cantin
An advocate of poisonous individualism.
To reply via email, replace "dcantin" with "bcantin".
Philip Peters
Mason Verger wrote:
> Richter, Pollini, Ashkenazy, O'Conor?
Rather Gilels, Schnabel, Nat, Yudina
Philip
>
>
Philip Peters
Ivailo Partchev wrote:
> Solomon
Another excellent one.
Philip
Phil Caron
Petri, Pollini (1970, live), Rosen (1961), Sokolov, and Yudina.
- Phil Caron
bal...@australia.edu
> In article <i8H7a.41511$_J5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, "Mason says...
> >
> >Richter, Pollini, Ashkenazy, O'Conor?
> >
Solomon, Gilels, Levy, Richter, Barenboim (EMI)
Cheers
Baldric
Marc Perman
"Brian Cantin" <bca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:wkheaov...@earthlink.net...
>
> Gilels.
Gilels live on BMG/Melodiya, not the DG studio recording.
Marc Perman
Sam
John Thomas
>
> >> Richter, Pollini, Ashkenazy, O'Conor?
>
> > Schnabel, Sokolov, Gilels, Rosen.
>
> Schnabel has too much trouble with the opening movement.
would be in this fingerbreaker) but if anyone's *interpretation* is to
be adjudged "authoritative" it's his; his Adagio is the finest i know
(though I have't heard Yudina.)
-John Thomas
Steve Emerson
"Marc Perman" <mper...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
Thank you for introducing the distinction. These are quite different
performances. My preference is for the live one too, although I wouldn't say
"not" to the other. I think it's terrific too.
SE.
Steve Emerson
vod...@aol.comdammspam (Sol L. Siegel) wrote:
> jwth...@sonic.net (John Thomas) writes:
>
> >> Richter, Pollini, Ashkenazy, O'Conor?
>
> > Schnabel, Sokolov, Gilels, Rosen.
>
> Schnabel has too much trouble with the opening movement. Too many
> others try too much to "interpret" the work instead of actually playing it
> (because they can't?). Rosen seems to get most of it. So does
> Beveridge Webster on a Dover LP from the Sixties (does the master
> tape even exist today?).
I would think it might, since some Fiorentino recordings that originated on
Dover seem to have had respectable APR issues. (I hope I have this right.)
It's interesting you mention Webster, in light of your Schnabel comment. These
two are among the very few who attempt to come close to the first-movement
metronome marks. Schnabel has a kind of "trouble" with the movement that he'd
never have had if he, like virtually everyone else, hadn't done this. Be this
as it may, I agree with you; I think Schnabel's i sounds terrible. And
Webster's is pretty successful. A recent i that is of a similar tempo and
quite interesting is Albulescu's, which by some miracle showed up at Berkshire
awhile back.
Trying to do something with this tempo might be a mark of an "authoritative"
performance. Then again, maybe the original poster meant merely "played with
authority," as in "He stood up and said, authoritatively, 'Ham and swiss, no
mustard'."
That sort of authority is actually needed here as well.
I too like Rosen (Sony) and Webster, also both Gilelses, Annie Fischer,
Richter, maybe some I forget. I'm still enjoying the Albulescu performance,
which I think is more interesting than the recent FF Guy recording.
SE.
Dirk A. Ronk
a good one and in excellent sound. I also have Petri, Gieseking,
Webster Aitken, Schnabel and Nat, but haven't heard them in a long
time. On CD, Richter rules.
Dirk
David7Gable
Which of his three recordings? My favorite is the first (from the early 60's),
although I also like the one in the Late Sonatas box now on Sony.
-david gable
David7Gable
>O'Connor would be nowhere near mine.
How many times did Ashkenazy record it? I like the spikey Stravinskyan fugue
from his 60's recording.
-david gable
Steve Emerson
david...@aol.com (David7Gable) wrote:
This came up awhile back. Between us, we came up with three if I remember
correctly (which is anybody's guess). I enjoy the '60s recording too, 1967 I
think; don't believe it's been released on CD -- unless you know differently.
SE.
Phil Caron
outer movements his difficulties are too distracting. I agree about the
Adagio.
- Phil Caron
"John Thomas" <jwth...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ffa3fec.03022...@posting.google.com...
David7Gable
recordings by Ashkenazy] if I remember
>think; don't believe it's been released on CD -- unless you know differently.
I don't know differently. Had it on LP. And I remember being extremely
enthusiastic about his performance of the fugue.
-david gable
Brian Cantin
As I have not heard the BMG/Melodiya, I had in mind the DG.
Tony Movshon
Yes, I'd like to get that one again -- it was my introduction to the piece and
I remain very fond of it.
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu
Edward Jasiewicz
rare and intelligent pianist who dares to take Beethoven's tempo
markings as her measure of what is correct. Her interpretation is
definitely deserving of the description "authoritative," in every
sense of the word. Please visit www.norvard.com to hear samples
of this disc, in MP3 format.
Below is the review of her performance of this sonata (and the
Waldstein) from American Record Guide.
regards,
Ed
------------------
BEETHOVEN: Piano Sonatas 21+29; Eunice Norton.
Norvard 0004--65 minutes (see ad this issue)
The one recording I had heard of the highly-praised Eunice Norton
(1908- )
proved disappointing. It was from late in her career, when
technical
frailties clouded a proper assessment of her artistry. Now I've
been given
another opportunity to sample her pianism, and these performances
were taken
down in her prime. Here are two major Beethoven sonatas: Nos. 21
(Waldstein)
and 29 (the notorious Hammerklavier--one of the most treacherous
works in the
piano literature). The Waldstein was recorded in 1959 when the
pianist was
51; the other six years later. Both were taped at recitals played
for an invited
audience in the pianist's home. Her playing is so extraordinary
as to cause me to
completely reassess her position in the pianistic pantheon.
Ms Norton's performance of Sonata 21 brings to mind some of the
great
recordings of the past by pianists such Schnabel (with whom she
studied and
whose influence is heard in an occasional rhythmic
quirkiness--that indelible
Schnabel hiccup), Annie Fischer, Rudolf Serkin, and the pre-war
Gieseking.
Here is a reading of titanic proportion, granitic in its
strength, electrifying in its
blazing intensity.
29 takes off like a rocket, then streaks across the firmament
like a flaming
meteor. Ms Norton takes the composer's impossibly fast metronome
markings to
heart and has the fingers and temperament to bring them off (a
few wrong
notes and the occasional smudged passage notwithstanding). My
only complaint
is the omission of the important exposition repeat in I (she
observes it 21).
II is brilliant in this quicksilver reading (has its central
section--bars
46-113--ever been so mysteriously haunting?). III is profoundly
beautiful in
a penetrating reading that reveals this pianist's tonal richness.
IV--that
mad, indeed maddening, fugue--is brilliantly and powerfully
achieved if not
without the occasional moment of struggle and sagging intensity.
Even with
its flaws this remains an exceptional reading of great power and
intensity.
This joins Schnabel (with all of its technical lapses, still
remains a
compelling reading, especially in III), Fischer, Serkin, the most
recent
Brendel, and the amazing young François-Frederic Guy among the
preferred
recordings of this flawed masterpiece.
The recorded sound is primitive for its time--dry and restricted.
There are
also moments when the piano sounds out of tune. No matter. The
ear adjusts,
and the magnificence of the playing shines through. There are
interesting
reflections on the music by Ms Norton and the recordings by
producer Edward
Jasiewicz, who should know that Mr Serkin was Rudolf, not
"Rudolph".
Allen Linkowski, American Record Guide (September/October, 1999)
---------------------------
"Steve Emerson" <eme...@nospamsonic.net> wrote in message
news:emersn-3F5EB2....@typhoon.sonic.net...
Simon Roberts
>
>Trying to do something with this tempo might be a mark of an "authoritative"
>performance.
There are more of those than one might think - Peter Serkin (twice; I especially
like his recording on a Graf fortepiano), Taub, Levinas, Gulda II, Gieseking and
one or two others come pretty close.
Then again, maybe the original poster meant merely "played with
>authority," as in "He stood up and said, authoritatively, 'Ham and swiss, no
>mustard'."
>
>That sort of authority is actually needed here as well.
>
Yes, or at least considerable force and drive (in i), which can be achieved and
avoided regardless of tempo. Ursula Oppens certainly does, and so does Ciani
(to mention two I forgot yesterday).
Simon
Steve Emerson
wrote:
> > Then again, maybe the original poster meant merely "played with
> >authority," as in "He stood up and said, authoritatively, 'Ham and swiss, no
> >mustard'."
> >
> >That sort of authority is actually needed here as well.
> >
>
> Yes, or at least considerable force and drive (in i), which can be achieved
> and
> avoided regardless of tempo. Ursula Oppens certainly does, and so does Ciani
[...]
Most edifying.
SE.
Eric Grunin
<nor...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eunice Norton, arguably Schnabel's greatest student
<<spam snipped>>
Self-promotion is spam unless clearly identified as such, and
sometimes even then.
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
typed in news:0t026vsahd6um01a6...@4ax.com:
Besides, some of us would argue on behalf of Leon Fleisher.
--
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
Mark Coy tossed off eBay? http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B734C02
RMCR's most pointless, dumb and laughable chowderhead: Mark Coy.
Edward Jasiewicz
taken advantage of the readers attention to promote topics of
their own interest(s), I am hardly even in the bottom half of
offenders with my rate and style of non-gratuitous mention of my
preferences. My post responded to the original request exactly
and with complete disclosure of my relationship to the endeavor
(which, idiot, was clearly not self-promotion as I am not
promoting myself!). Hardly spam when what was being offered was
*free* samples of the piece in question.
Get a life, Eric.
-e
"Eric Grunin" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:0t026vsahd6um01a6...@4ax.com...
Edward Jasiewicz
-ed
"Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)"
<oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns933177DA4D8...@129.250.170.82...
Phil Caron
his history of doing so, one can assume he's not doing so to make money.
Your "spam" designation is too hasty.
- Phil Caron
"Eric Grunin" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:0t026vsahd6um01a6...@4ax.com...
Dan Koren
> Richter, Pollini, Ashkenazy, O'Conor?
Richter, Levy, Rosen.
dk
Dan Koren
>
> Eunice Norton, arguably Schnabel's greatest student, is another
> rare and intelligent pianist who dares to take Beethoven's tempo
> markings as her measure of what is correct.
And valiantly so in view of her limited keyboard abilities.
> Her interpretation is definitely deserving of the description
> "authoritative," in every sense of the word.
Including that sense of the word which means the highest count of
missed notes.
> Please visit www.norvard.com to hear samples of this disc, in
> MP3 format.
>
> Below is the review of her performance of this sonata (and the
> Waldstein) from American Record Guide.
>
Please spare us the music reviews subsidised by the Iraq Ministry
of (Mis)Information.
dk
Edward Jasiewicz
"Dan Koren" <dank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c1c5ead9.03030...@posting.google.com...
> "Edward Jasiewicz" <nor...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<f868a.6007$Uy4.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>..
.
> >
> > Eunice Norton, arguably Schnabel's greatest student, is
another
> > rare and intelligent pianist who dares to take Beethoven's
tempo
> > markings as her measure of what is correct.
>
> And valiantly so in view of her limited keyboard abilities.
Nah, nah, nah Dan. Now you're it...
> > Her interpretation is definitely deserving of the description
> > "authoritative," in every sense of the word.
>
> Including that sense of the word which means the highest count
of
> missed notes.
Missed notes? I don't miss any of them. I guess they were extra!
:P
> > Please visit www.norvard.com to hear samples of this disc, in
> > MP3 format.
> >
> > Below is the review of her performance of this sonata (and
the
> > Waldstein) from American Record Guide.
> >
>
> Please spare us the music reviews subsidised by the Iraq
Ministry
> of (Mis)Information.
This is strange. Pray tell, what do you really mean with this
last little bitchy comment?
double cheers to you - you clearly need it.
-ed
Edward Jasiewicz
Phil. Besides, who makes money in classical music these days (!)?
;)
-ed
"Phil Caron" <vlad...@vermontel.net> wrote in message
news:10465539...@netserver2.vermontel.net...
Bob Lombard
<nor...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Not so often anymore, if you haven't noticed. But thanks anyway,
>Phil. Besides, who makes money in classical music these days (!)?
>;)
>
>-ed
>
>WWW.NORVARD.COM
>
Ed, I don't know how tight you are with Norvard, but maybe you can
pass on some gripes.
1) They invite credit card orders, but don't use a secure server.
2) The 'purchase receipt' to be printed out for orders to be paid by
check has highly unecessary artwork that wastes ink/toner and extends
beyond one page.
bl
Sol L. Siegel
>> Below is the review of her performance of this sonata (and the
>> Waldstein) from American Record Guide.
>>
>
>Please spare us the music reviews subsidised by the Iraq Ministry
>of (Mis)Information.
Illuminate, please.
-Sol Siegel, Philadelphia, PA
--------------------
"I am sure of very little, and I shouldn't be surprised if those things were
wrong." - Clarence Darrow
--------------------
(Remove "dammspam" from the end of my e-mail address to respond.)
Eric Grunin
<nor...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Excuse me??
You may know that Fanfare has been roundly criticized for not
disclosing that CDs are often refused review unless the label buys
advertising space. This practice is considered unethical because
Fanfare theoretically stands to gain from encouraging good reviews.
Whether they actually do so is ethically irrelevant. What hurts
Fanfare's credibility is not necessarily *actual* conflict of
interest, but the *apperance* of conflict of interest.
Similarly, people here who have a professional or personal connection
to a CD they are advocating generally say so prominently, either up
front or with their signature. You don't do this, which may be modesty
-- I couldn't find your name on the Norvard website -- but the less
prominently a connection is mentioned, the more it becomes pure
advertising, aka spam.
It really enhances trust and goodwill when, rather than saying
"Rosalie Frink is a great flutist", one says, "Rosalie Frink happens
to be my wife, but she's also a great flutist."
I have nothing against your urging readers to hear Ms. Norton's work,
as I'm sure its unique qualities speak for themselves.
Regards,
Eric Grunin
www.grunin.com/eroica
Neil
>I don't know about authoritative. My favorites include Ashkenazy, Levy,
>Petri, Pollini (1970, live), Rosen (1961), Sokolov, and Yudina.
Sokolov, Gould, Yudina !!
Lena
>Then again, maybe the original poster meant merely "played with
>authority," as in "He stood up and said, authoritatively, 'Ham and
>swiss, no mustard'."
But if his Hammerklavier still gets portobello and red peppers with
hot sauce after all that, he must be Richter... (More bluster, less
authority!) :) (And if his HK doesn't even dare to ask, but sits
around looking elegant, it must be Solomon...)
> That sort of authority is actually needed here as well.
Well... Ham is dispensable but mustard is absolutely necessary in the
HK. The Hammerklaviers possessing the most mustard are Charles Rosen
(Sony), Beveridge Webster, and Gilels (Melodiya). (Gilels/DGG will do
in an emergency.)
There are other interesting accounts and many partial successes
(e.g. there are several decent slow movements around, and some very
interesting fugues), but though the condiments vary, the above is the
only possible conclusion. :):) For any certifiably unfetishistic owner
of a bazillion Hammerklaviers.
Grey Poupon
PS. Btw - for getting the chance to hear Beveridge Webster, I
opportunistically thank any and all authorities available.
Lena
> In article <i8H7a.41511$_J5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, "Mason says...
> >
> >Richter, Pollini, Ashkenazy, O'Conor?
> >
>
> If you're simply interested in a list of favorite recordings,
or trolling? :)
> Ashkenazy and
> O'Connor would be nowhere near mine. Yudina (hers is by far my favorite iii),
> Sokolov, Gulda/Amadeo, Gilels, Peter Serkin (his fortepiano recording, not the
> Steinway remake), Pollini, maybe Richter, and a few others would.
I should hear Ashkenazy one day...
For the rest, I'm in a fairly different camp (here) from Simon, though some
of the ones he mentions I consider good; only not outstanding.
I'm not sure the amount of "authority" in i is the critical factor in
this sonata, though I want less of it here than Steve (and others,
IIRC David W.); I like a different sort of energy in this piece.
I mean, I do think that i and iv require significant aggressiveness
(though iv is a complicated, elusive movement). However, I don't much
like building them as some sort of slow-moving musical fortresses
(grand, massive, overemphatic, imposingly dark gray pieces...).
Force is possible at any speed (provided you can accelerate, I
suppose :) ), but tempo affects the exact quality of forcefulness: getting
closer to the metronome mark makes an aggressive approach sound less
heavy, and more playful, energetic, exhilarating. Tempo is not the
only thing, but it helps. Anyway, I'm pretty well in the
Rosen/Webster (and also Schnabel, if he had succeeded) school of "no
majesty" in this movement.
For me, the outer movements of this sonata aren't really "emotional"
in any standard way, but they're capable of delivering a unique
visceral buzz (or really, a high which is deeply exciting as well as
appropriately superficial :) ) - but there are some faux-pas that
destroy this effect for me. Really overdoing majesty is one of them.
(But Gilels, for example, can produce exhilaration despite slower
tempo because other things are in place.)
It's surprising to me how many pianists like a "majestic" first
movement. Even more surprising how many good ones commit various more
serious bad deeds. Maybe the most serious no-nos are (IMO) the usual:
various phrasing problems (e.g. phrasing on an excessively short-range
level) and overemphasizing "melody"/top voice.
Despite his good fugue, Richter's first movement is decidedly a
fortress gone wandering off somewhere, while emitting futilely
authoritative noises - and, among other phrasing things, he misreads
the first movement climax position. (I've heard two Richter i's; same
in both.)
And some pianists are so poorly recorded or over-melodically oriented
that the movements hardly sound harmonically complete (Solomon, for
example). (Besides, the lower registers are very important; I'd
almost say they're deeply meaningful here - as in many other pieces,
Beethoven uses register changes in addition to other means to create
patterns of visceral impact (viz. the culminations with a typical
sudden register widening - right and left hands separate to extremes).
The lower registers also go with very definite emotional changes in
the piece. (The fugue in particular is worth looking at from the
register point of view.)) Gilels is notable for great balance (pretty
well in all the DG sonatas recordings, too).
Faster i performances (other than the very best mentioned) tend to
suffer from a lack of distinctions in larger scale phrasing, so
they're a kind of a fast ratatouille. I.e. a lot may be happening per
square inch, but the square inches aren't ordered in a very exciting
way. E.g. Gulda/Amadeo falls in this category. (I haven't heard
Oppens.)
I'm not too happy with either Levy or Yudina, frankly - there may be
moments, but both seem to me to shake their phrasing off foundations
by overly voluptuous and somewhat arbitrary rubatoizing.
In the list of interesting fugues, I'll mention Edith Vogel's.
Lena
Lena
Thanks for mentioning this:
> A recent i that is of a similar tempo and quite interesting is
> Albulescu's, which by some miracle showed up at Berkshire awhile
> back.
You're right; this belongs in the (small) tradition of fast,
aggressive outer movements. Albulescu has lots of arresting details,
e.g. much unusual spiky, abrupt phrasing, but in i and iv he doesn't
hold up to Webster and Rosen (or many other pianists) on the larger
scale. Albulescu has a bit of the ratatouille approach (clumping of
phrases undistinctive), though it's an interesting ratatouille.
However, his Adagio is very coherent and emotionally convincing, with
lots of tension. I agree with you, it's the only interesting recent
version I can think of (Guy's is not...).
Lena
Lena
>> Beveridge Webster on a Dover LP from the Sixties [...]
> It's interesting you mention Webster, in light of your Schnabel
> comment. These two are among the very few who attempt to come close
> to the first-movement metronome marks. [...]
> Trying to do something with this tempo might be a mark of an
> "authoritative" performance.
Forget "authoritative" - I want to know if there are any truly
authorititatitatitative performances of the Hammerklavier? :)
(Defined possibly as a performance which takes all indicated repeats
an unnaturally enthusiastic number of times. :) )
Lena
Simon Roberts
says...
[snip]
>I'm not too happy with either Levy or Yudina, frankly - there may be
>moments, but both seem to me to shake their phrasing off foundations
>by overly voluptuous and somewhat arbitrary rubatoizing.
>
What do you think of her slow movement? As for Levi, I think his first movement
is about as bad as it gets - an aimless, sprawling, shapeless, rubato-laden,
tension-free, incoherent mess, with insufficient dynamic contrast to boot. I
think a wider range of approaches work in the first movement than you do, but
his certainly isn't one of them. (I like other recordings of his, though.)
Simon
Bob Lombard
This is dismaying. Smashing of idols (yes, a previously unrecognized
iconoclast at work) gets no more reaction than this? Are the rest of
the rmcr nobility too busy debating Iraq?
bl
Samir Golescu
On 3 Mar 2003, Lena wrote:
> > Trying to do something with this tempo might be a mark of an
> > "authoritative" performance.
>
> Forget "authoritative" - I want to know if there are any truly
> authorititatitatitative performances of the Hammerklavier?
One is glad to note you are finally getting in touch with your inner
Romanian, Lena.
regards,
SG
Sol L. Siegel
>As for Levi [sic], I think his first movement is about as bad as it gets - an
>aimless, sprawling, shapeless, rubato-laden, tension-free, incoherent
>mess, with insufficient dynamic contrast to boot.
I wouldn't go quite that far. But I do consider it a good example of
the sort of "interpreting", as opposed to "playing", that ruins many
recorded performances of the work. It doesn't compare to the other
Beethoven recordings in his Marston sets.
Samir Golescu
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Bob Lombard wrote:
> > [Simon R on Levy]
> >is about as bad as it gets - an aimless, sprawling, shapeless, rubato-laden,
> >tension-free, incoherent mess, with insufficient dynamic contrast to boot. I
> >think a wider range of approaches work in the first movement than you do, but
> >his certainly isn't one of them. (I like other recordings of his, though.)
>
> This is dismaying. Smashing of idols (yes, a previously unrecognized
> iconoclast at work) gets no more reaction than this? Are the rest of
> the rmcr nobility too busy debating Iraq?
We've noticed the blasphemy, Mr Lombard but what can we do? To those who
have much to offer, much is allowed. Or, as ancient Romanian wisdom so
aptly asserts, "tulips may not be truffles, but the pink elephant's butt
covers elegantly the line of the horizon".
regards,
SG
Simon Roberts
says...
I shudder to think which of the three I am....
Simon
Edward Jasiewicz
bought critical praise for Norton. I know he will not be able to
substantiate that considering he is wrong and/or lying: Norton's
recordings have warranted the full spectrum of criticism in both
American Record Guide and Fanfare during this later period of her
career - so much for buying praise! Incidentally, such diversity
in reception is often the case with highly original artists,
which is something Dan won't readily grasp with his appalling
criterion for artistic success. Frankly, he should thank me for
bothering to release something to the public that would otherwise
have been lost to posterity. I doubt he will recognize this any
time soon, though.
Sadly, even if Dan will never be able to grasp Norton's artistry,
his ugly attempts at slanderously picking-away at a great artist
only makes him look ridiculous. Thankfully, it will never
overshadow the vehement endorsements of countless international
critics who wrote about her from 1926 to today, not to mention
the energetic praise and support Norton received from Ignace
Paderewsky, Artur Schnabel, Karl Ulrich Schnabel, Eugene Ormandy,
Leopold Stokowsky, Bruno Walter, Paul Hindemith, Aaron Copeland,
Roselyn Tureck, Sir Henry Wood, Sir Adrian Boult, Sir Hamilton
Harty, Claude Franck, Dame Myra Hess, Tobias Matthay, Alfred
Einstein, Serge Koussevitsky, Frederick Stock, Henry Verbruggen,
etc.The list goes on and on.
Who would you believe??
regards,
Ed
Producer
Norvard Recordings
www.norvard.com
www.mp3.com/Edward_Jasiewicz
"Sol L. Siegel" <vod...@aol.comdammspam> wrote in message
news:20030302001406...@mb-cj.aol.com...
Edward Jasiewicz
Who would you believe??
regards,
Ed
Edward Jasiewicz
-e
"Edward Jasiewicz" <nor...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:jKP8a.80148$zF6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net..
.
Edward Jasiewicz
site (though some of my stuff has been used there), but I will
pass on the information to those who may do something about it.
-Ed
Producer
Norvard Recordings
www.norvard.com
www.mp3.com/Edward_Jasiewicz
"Bob Lombard" <hill...@vermontel.net> wrote in message
news:cvs26vcgvsc2nlk67...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 02:28:10 GMT, "Edward Jasiewicz"
> <nor...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Not so often anymore, if you haven't noticed. But thanks
anyway,
> >Phil. Besides, who makes money in classical music these days
(!)?
> >;)
> >
> >-ed
> >
> >WWW.NORVARD.COM
> >
> Ed, I don't know how tight you are with Norvard, but maybe you
can
> pass on some gripes.
>
> 1) They invite credit card orders, but don't use a secure
server.
>
> 2) The 'purchase receipt' to be printed out for orders to be
paid by
> check has highly unnecessary artwork that wastes ink/toner and
extends
> beyond one page.
Edward Jasiewicz
"Eric Grunin" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 20:36:12 GMT, "Edward Jasiewicz"
> <nor...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Excuse me??
>
> You may know that Fanfare has been roundly criticized for not
> disclosing that CDs are often refused review unless the label
buys
> advertising space. This practice is considered unethical
because
> Fanfare theoretically stands to gain from encouraging good
reviews.
I have heard this account before but never suffered from it
because I had always intended to first use Fanfare as an
advertising venue, not for reviews. In fact, I had no intention
of ever submitting Norvard's releases to magazines for review
because that may have invited critical dismissal (and we already
had enough glowing reviews of Eunice Norton from her numerous
years of performing abroad in the past - and by more famous
historic personalities, to boot).
But to offer another example, I have a friend with whom I
attended conservatory who submitted his
recordings of Chopin's Etudes around the same time a small ad
showed up in Fanfare and ARG for his disc; unfortunately, the
critics still panned the recording horribly, so at least this
proves to me one can pay for the ads and still be soundly
rejected critically.
> Whether they actually do so is ethically irrelevant. What hurts
> Fanfare's credibility is not necessarily *actual* conflict of
> interest, but the *apperance* of conflict of interest.
I have no interest in your innuendoes of unethical behavior. I'm
not a gossip.
> Similarly, people here who have a professional or personal
connection
> to a CD they are advocating generally say so prominently,
either up
> front or with their signature. You don't do this, which may be
modesty
> -- I couldn't find your name on the Norvard website -- but the
less
> prominently a connection is mentioned, the more it becomes pure
> advertising, aka spam.
>
> It really enhances trust and goodwill when, rather than saying
> "Rosalie Frink is a great flutist", one says, "Rosalie Frink
happens
> to be my wife, but she's also a great flutist."
>
> I have nothing against your urging readers to hear Ms. Norton's
work,
> as I'm sure its unique qualities speak for themselves.
You may be right about this last point, but I have not cared
enough
to bother with outlining such connections repeatedly (I have
mentioned here
many times that I have produced this series of Eunice Norton's
recordings), such as your own signature touts. It seems to me
more
questionable (or at least irritating) that you need to take every
opportunity to advertise
something (your "Eroica" site, for example) that may not have
anything to do in response to the topic of a post, such as
my post certainly was for discussing authoritative Hammerklavier
recordings. Maybe I should start to be more like you and be more
licentious in regard to shameless self-promotion.
...for the record, then: I created Norvard Recordings as a result
of the number of requests I was getting for the recordings of
Eunice Norton (as a student of hers, I sort of fell into
organizing them when her husband died). The label enjoyed some
success with limited releases of our six titles, so far (no more
than one thousand of each title was manufactured - though, there
are plenty more releases planned, if I ever get to do it - many
titles of which readers here may consider to be Norton's better
efforts because I, differing with the ridiculous notion of youth
representing an artist's "prime," have preferred to publish what
I like, namely her older-aged performances that feature her more
evolved musicianship). Now, the venture has been taken over by a
member of her family, so I'm not sure what will come of it. I
only hope I get to release Norton's Diabelli Variations and some
other early recordings she made before it may close down (from
the 1930s and 1940s: Brahms Handel Variations, Schumann Symph.
Etudes, Honegger Concertino premiere with Ormandy and the
Minneapolis, Petrouchka excerpts, the late Beethoven sonatas,
Schubert D960 and other sonatas, the Chopin Preludes) which a lot
of the duller minds out there in "music reception" may have an
easier time grasping. (For example, her 1968 WTC got stellar
reviews recently, but I far prefer her 1990s performance of the
whole set, which may never be published now that the earlier one
has taken root...)
Bob Lombard
<nor...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Thanks for the advice, Bob. I am not in charge of Norvard's web
>site (though some of my stuff has been used there), but I will
>pass on the information to those who may do something about it.
>
>-Ed
>
>Producer
>Norvard Recordings
>www.norvard.com
>www.mp3.com/Edward_Jasiewicz
>
I printed out the order blank, and this morning I dicovered *another*
problem with it. Norvard's mailing address isn't on it. Makes it
awkward to address the envelope.
bl
Samir Golescu
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Edward Jasiewicz wrote:
> I have heard this account before but never suffered from it
> because I had always intended to first use Fanfare as an
> advertising venue, not for reviews. In fact, I had no intention
> of ever submitting Norvard's releases to magazines for review
> because that may have invited critical dismissal
Where did this unlikely pessimism sprout from?
> (and we already
> had enough glowing reviews of Eunice Norton from her numerous
> years of performing abroad in the past - and by more famous
> historic personalities, to boot).
Which personalities heard her playing many decades ago, yes, when she was
in good pianistic shape?
> But to offer another example, I have a friend with whom I
> attended conservatory who submitted his
> recordings of Chopin's Etudes around the same time a small ad
> showed up in Fanfare and ARG for his disc; unfortunately, the
> critics still panned the recording horribly, so at least this
> proves to me one can pay for the ads and still be soundly
> rejected critically.
If it is indeed a sound critical rejection, why avoiding it?
> You may be right about this last point, but I have not cared
> enough
> to bother with outlining such connections repeatedly (I have
> mentioned here
> many times that I have produced this series of Eunice Norton's
> recordings), such as your own signature touts. It seems to me
> more
> questionable (or at least irritating) that you need to take every
> opportunity to advertise
> something (your "Eroica" site, for example) that may not have
> anything to do in response to the topic of a post,
Well, Mr Grunin was selling nothing the last time I checked, not to
mention that his "Eroica" site is a "compared interpretations" project of
great interest to [H]eroic[a] Fetishists such as rmcr readers. . . there's
hardly any signature in rmcr to be more "on-topic" than his (not mine,
lately, that's for sure ( :).
> such as
> my post certainly was for discussing authoritative Hammerklavier
> recordings. Maybe I should start to be more like you and be more
> licentious in regard to shameless self-promotion.
Being more like Mr Grunin might prove, if admirable, difficult a goal,
while the latter endeavor might prove less than advisable. . .
> ...for the record, then: I created Norvard Recordings as a result
> of the number of requests I was getting for the recordings of
> Eunice Norton (as a student of hers, I sort of fell into
> organizing them when her husband died). The label enjoyed some
> success with limited releases of our six titles, so far (no more
> than one thousand of each title was manufactured - though, there
> are plenty more releases planned, if I ever get to do it - many
> titles of which readers here may consider to be Norton's better
> efforts because I, differing with the ridiculous notion of youth
> representing an artist's "prime," have preferred to publish what
> I like, namely her older-aged performances that feature her more
> evolved musicianship).
Do you mean that anybody who is of the opinion that, say, Ms Norton was a
decent -- while never first-class -- pianist when young, while an
often atrocious one in her latter recordings, is to be dismissed as
ridiculous?
> Now, the venture has been taken over by a
> member of her family, so I'm not sure what will come of it. I
> only hope I get to release Norton's Diabelli Variations and some
> other early recordings she made before it may close down (from
> the 1930s and 1940s: Brahms Handel Variations, Schumann Symph.
> Etudes, Honegger Concertino premiere with Ormandy and the
> Minneapolis, Petrouchka excerpts, the late Beethoven sonatas,
> Schubert D960 and other sonatas, the Chopin Preludes) which a lot
> of the duller minds out there in "music reception" may have an
> easier time grasping.
Wow, this later phrase should be used as a promotional sticker for the
upcoming releases -- there's nothing to work in today's market better than
a tiny-weeny bit of consumer flattery. . .
regards,
SG
Dan Koren
Any recordings by Nicolae Ceaucescu?
dk
REG
"Edward Jasiewicz" <nor...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:zLP8a.80151$zF6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Edward Jasiewicz
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Edward Jasiewicz wrote:
>
> > I have heard this account before but never suffered from it
> > because I had always intended to first use Fanfare as an
> > advertising venue, not for reviews. In fact, I had no
intention
> > of ever submitting Norvard's releases to magazines for review
> > because that may have invited critical dismissal
>
> Where did this unlikely pessimism sprout from?
It's not pessimism, it's business sense.
>
> > (and we already
> > had enough glowing reviews of Eunice Norton from her numerous
> > years of performing abroad in the past - and by more famous
> > historic personalities, to boot).
>
> Which personalities heard her playing many decades ago, yes,
when she was
> in good pianistic shape?
>
> > But to offer another example, I have a friend with whom I
> > attended conservatory who submitted his
> > recordings of Chopin's Etudes around the same time a small ad
> > showed up in Fanfare and ARG for his disc; unfortunately, the
> > critics still panned the recording horribly, so at least this
> > proves to me one can pay for the ads and still be soundly
> > rejected critically.
>
> If it is indeed a sound critical rejection, why avoiding it?
I had no need for criticism. Besides, they were reviewed and
reviewed positively, so no point in pursuing this...
> > You may be right about this last point, but I have not cared
> > enough
> > to bother with outlining such connections repeatedly (I have
> > mentioned here
> > many times that I have produced this series of Eunice
Norton's
> > recordings), such as your own signature touts. It seems to me
> > more
> > questionable (or at least irritating) that you need to take
every
> > opportunity to advertise
> > something (your "Eroica" site, for example) that may not have
> > anything to do in response to the topic of a post,
>
>
> Well, Mr Grunin was selling nothing the last time I checked,
not to
> mention that his "Eroica" site is a "compared interpretations"
project of
> great interest to [H]eroic[a] Fetishists such as rmcr readers.
. . there's
> hardly any signature in rmcr to be more "on-topic" than his
(not mine,
> lately, that's for sure ( :).
What did it have to do with authoritative hammerklaviers, by the
way?
Wow, so kind are you with praise ("decent")? And nope - just Dan.
Feel free to agree or not.
>
> > Now, the venture has been taken over by a
> > member of her family, so I'm not sure what will come of it. I
> > only hope I get to release Norton's Diabelli Variations and
some
> > other early recordings she made before it may close down
(from
> > the 1930s and 1940s: Brahms Handel Variations, Schumann
Symph.
> > Etudes, Honegger Concertino premiere with Ormandy and the
> > Minneapolis, Petrouchka excerpts, the late Beethoven sonatas,
> > Schubert D960 and other sonatas, the Chopin Preludes) which a
lot
> > of the duller minds out there in "music reception" may have
an
> > easier time grasping.
>
> Wow, this later phrase should be used as a promotional sticker
for the
> upcoming releases -- there's nothing to work in today's market
better than
> a tiny-weeny bit of consumer flattery. . .
I call 'em like I hear 'em, whether it pleases folks or not.
Again, feel free to agree or not, Samir. It's nice you have an
opinion, too. I'll continue having mine, thank you.
-e
Dan Koren
>
> Because Dan doesn't like Norton's playing, he is suggesting I
> bought critical praise for Norton.
Not at all. I would never suspect you of anything like that.
Honestly. Seriously. There are so many critics around, and
so many of them are so stupid they admire anything they hear.
All one has to do is just send them CD's to review. After all,
if it is possible to find critics who will praise Perahia and
Uchida, it shouldn't be too difficult to find even someone who
likes Norton. And if everything else fails, one has always the
option to send review CD's to Harold Schonberg, who has vouched
for *Juana* *Zayas*!
Rest assured I never questioned your integrity. There are other
organs in your body that I have doubts about.
> I know he will not be able to substantiate that considering he
> is wrong and/or lying: Norton's recordings have warranted the
> full spectrum of criticism in both American Record Guide and
> Fanfare during this later period of her career - so much for
> buying praise!
So what? As I said before, I never suspected any wrongdoing on
your part. After all, one cannot hold anyone responsible for
other people's ears! :)
> Incidentally, such diversity in reception is often the case
> with highly original artists, which is something Dan won't
> readily grasp with his appalling criterion for artistic
> success.
Tell us more about that. I never had any criteria for success.
The only measure of success is... success. Not to mention I
never criticized Norton for lack of success -- I criticized
her for lack of talent and musicality.
> Frankly, he should thank me for bothering to release something
> to the public that would otherwise have been lost to posterity.
I should thank you for spending $75 (or was it $90?) to acquire
the worst piano performances in my entire collection ?!?
> I doubt he will recognize this any time soon, though.
I guess I'll have to ask posterity.
> Sadly, even if Dan will never be able to grasp Norton's artistry,
> his ugly attempts at slanderously picking-away at a great artist
> only makes him look ridiculous. Thankfully, it will never
> overshadow the vehement endorsements of countless international
> critics who wrote about her from 1926 to today, not to mention
> the energetic praise and support Norton received from Ignace
> Paderewsky, Artur Schnabel, Karl Ulrich Schnabel, Eugene Ormandy,
> Leopold Stokowsky, Bruno Walter, Paul Hindemith, Aaron Copeland,
> Roselyn Tureck, Sir Henry Wood, Sir Adrian Boult, Sir Hamilton
> Harty, Claude Franck, Dame Myra Hess, Tobias Matthay, Alfred
> Einstein, Serge Koussevitsky, Frederick Stock, Henry Verbruggen,
> etc. The list goes on and on.
>
> Who would you believe??
Only one's ears -- one hopes.
dk
Dan Koren
>
> Oops. sorry about the repeat.
>
That's OK. You take it in op. 110 too -- right?
dk
Dan Koren
>
> Mr. Jasiewicz often praises Norton's recordings
> here, and why not? Based on his history of doing
> so, one can assume he's not doing so to make money.
>
Of course not. He merely enjoys torturing others.
dk
Dan Koren
> Steve Emerson <eme...@nospamsonic.net> wrote in message
>
>
> >Then again, maybe the original poster meant merely "played with
> >authority," as in "He stood up and said, authoritatively, 'Ham and
> >swiss, no mustard'."
>
> But if his Hammerklavier still gets portobello and red peppers with
> hot sauce after all that, he must be Richter... (More bluster, less
> authority!) :) (And if his HK doesn't even dare to ask, but sits
> around looking elegant, it must be Solomon...)
>
> > That sort of authority is actually needed here as well.
>
> Well... Ham is dispensable but mustard is absolutely necessary in the
> HK. The Hammerklaviers possessing the most mustard are Charles Rosen
> (Sony), Beveridge Webster, and Gilels (Melodiya). (Gilels/DGG will do
> in an emergency.)
>
> There are other interesting accounts and many partial successes
> (e.g. there are several decent slow movements around, and some very
> interesting fugues), but though the condiments vary, the above is the
> only possible conclusion. :):) For any certifiably unfetishistic owner
> of a bazillion Hammerklaviers.
>
> Grey Poupon
No thanks. I take mine with curry.
dk
Dan Koren
> like a "majestic" first movement.
I'm saving my money for Mustonen.
dk
Dan Koren
> suppose :) ), but tempo affects the exact quality of forcefulness: getting
> closer to the metronome mark makes an aggressive approach sound less
> heavy, and more playful, energetic, exhilarating. Tempo is not the
> only thing, but it helps. Anyway, I'm pretty well in the
> Rosen/Webster (and also Schnabel, if he had succeeded) school of "no
> majesty" in this movement.
>
How about Gould? There certainly isn't any
majesty in anything he played/recorded.
dk
Edward Jasiewicz
"Dan Koren" <dank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c1c5ead9.03030...@posting.google.com...
> "Edward Jasiewicz" <nor...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<NJP8a.80145$zF6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
...
> >
> > Because Dan doesn't like Norton's playing, he is suggesting I
> > bought critical praise for Norton.
>
> Not at all. I would never suspect you of anything like that.
> Honestly. Seriously. ...
[stuff cut]
> Tell us more about that. I never had any criteria for success.
> The only measure of success is... success. Not to mention I
> never criticized Norton for lack of success -- I criticized
> her for lack of talent and musicality.
[Very interesting that your response to me turns my quote of
"artistic success" into just "success."]
Hehe. This from the man who calls Beethoven drek! I'll thank you
on behalf of Norton for putting her in such great company. ;)
(For an example for anyone left reading this sad old thread, I'm
still laughing about your criticism of his Waldstein Sonata being
weak for starting with 13 repetitions of the same chord...! You
should realize that astonishing comments like that sorely qualify
just about all your musically related opinions.)
Dan, I think we should just leave it at "nah, nah, nah." No point
in bothering to beat a dead horse any longer. Feel free to keep
typing if you like, but I've had my dose of your form of idiocy
already.
-ed
Hugh Roberts
> "Mason Verger" <mason_...@skincare.com> wrote in message news:<i8H7a.41511$_J5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
> > Richter, Pollini, Ashkenazy, O'Conor?
>
> Richter, Levy, Rosen.
>
>
> dk
Can I put in a plug for John Lill? I've only heard a broadcast of his
version of it, 10 or more years ago, but his playing of the outer
movements was astonishing for its clarity, and made, for the first
time for me, some sense of the fugue (I was used to Schnabel's
recording).
By the way, who actually likes this sonata? Or, if you don't think
that matters, who thinks it's a greater sonata than any of the other
late ones? All the books seem to treat it with such hushed reverence.
It's certainly the most experimental of any LvB wrote, but did the
experiment succeed?
Hugh Roberts
Lena
Out of perhaps misplaced over-demureness, one tries to avoid meeting
one's inner Romanians. But occasionally they escape and darken
the countryside with their fangs and somewhat oversized dictionaries.
I mean that literalirally.
Lena
Lena
Somehow I think I've forgotten the original question... :)
Entranced by pink elephants,
Lena
Lena
>By the way, who actually likes this sonata?
Don't ask Dan. :)
Well, I wrote:
>For me, the outer movements of this sonata aren't really "emotional"
>in any standard way, but they're capable of delivering a unique
>visceral buzz (or really, a high which is deeply exciting as well as
>appropriately superficial :) )
And I was actually pretty serious. (And I didn't mention that I like
the rest of it as well.)
I simply really react to this sonata (as I do to the Grosse Fuge).
(It's quite possible that these pieces were written with me
specifically in mind. :) ) So maybe that answers that question.
> Or, if you don't think that matters, who thinks it's a greater
> sonata than any of the other late ones?
Now, that's the kind of question which really doesn't matter.
>All the books seem to treat it with such hushed reverence.
And neither does that...
Lena
Simon Roberts
says...
>By the way, who actually likes this sonata?
I do. Maybe everyone else is just faking it.
Or, if you don't think
>that matters,
It matters to me whether I like it....
who thinks it's a greater sonata than any of the other
>late ones?
> All the books seem to treat it with such hushed reverence.
Noisy reverence would be more apt.
Simon
Johannes Roehl
> Well, I wrote:
>
> >For me, the outer movements of this sonata aren't really "emotional"
> >in any standard way, but they're capable of delivering a unique
> >visceral buzz (or really, a high which is deeply exciting as well as
> >appropriately superficial :) )
>
> And I was actually pretty serious. (And I didn't mention that I like
> the rest of it as well.)
>
> I simply really react to this sonata (as I do to the Grosse Fuge).
> (It's quite possible that these pieces were written with me
> specifically in mind. :) ) So maybe that answers that question.
So the dedication to the Archduke was only a pretext! We
should have known that LvB had as always the Immortal
Beloved in mind...
SCNR
Johannes
Samir Golescu
> > It's surprising to me how many pianists like a "majestic" first
> > movement.
Ever heard good ol' Backhaus? A tempo around "80" (as opposed to "138") if
memory serves. It sounded a bit like Brahms' First Sonata but it worked
better than Schnabel's shipwreck anyway. . . ( :
regards,
SG
Dan Koren
>
>
> >By the way, who actually likes this sonata?
>
> Don't ask Dan. :)
>
I like it a little -- and only in small doses.
It makes an ideal counter-example, and as we
all know counter-examples are quite useful in
teaching. It is also an excellent vehicle for
taking revenge against the instrument.
But it is nowhere near the exalted masterpiece
it is claimed to be by the Beethoven zealots.
dk
Dan Koren
I'd love to hear what would John Lewis make out of it :)
dk
Phil Caron
news:8712a17.03030...@posting.google.com...
>
> Can I put in a plug for John Lill? I've only heard a broadcast of his
> version of it, 10 or more years ago, but his playing of the outer
> movements was astonishing for its clarity, and made, for the first
> time for me, some sense of the fugue (I was used to Schnabel's
> recording).
But Schnabel's fugue is a mess. One version of the fugue that makes a
particularly great impact on me is Petri's.
> By the way, who actually likes this sonata? Or, if you don't think
> that matters, who thinks it's a greater sonata than any of the other
> late ones? All the books seem to treat it with such hushed reverence.
> It's certainly the most experimental of any LvB wrote, but did the
> experiment succeed?
I like it and almost always get a lasting thrill from hearing it.
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Phil Caron wrote:
> > It's certainly the most experimental of any LvB wrote, but did the
> > experiment succeed?
>
> I like it and almost always get a lasting thrill from hearing it.
Judging by the last movement, even those who would not agree with you
(I guess I would) should get a *lasting trill* from hearing it. . .
regards,
SG
( :
Ray Hall
Lewis wouldn't touch this piece - it would damage his fingers and hence his
exquisite pianism. Fwiw, I have never doubted, maybe, the emotional power
this piece has for many people, (each to their own), but for me it is just
too brutal and ugly as music. But I am perfectly happy enough with *my*
ears. Mompou wrote better pieces.
..... running .....
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
See You Tamara (Ozzy Osbourne)
Ray, Taree, NSW
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 18/02/03
Dan Koren
>
> | I'd love to hear what would John Lewis make out of it :)
>
> Lewis wouldn't touch this piece - it would damage his fingers and hence his
> exquisite pianism. Fwiw, I have never doubted, maybe, the emotional power
> this piece has for many people, (each to their own), but for me it is just
> too brutal and ugly as music. But I am perfectly happy enough with *my*
> ears. Mompou wrote better pieces.
>
This is apparently the only topic on which you and I agree.
Amazing! There's still an ounce of logic left down under :)
dk
Dan Koren
Even I can play it at 80!
But then, I drive 80 all
the time!
dk
Lena
> Lena schrieb:
> > (It's quite possible that these pieces were written with me
> > specifically in mind. :) )
> So the dedication to the Archduke was only a pretext! We
> should have known that LvB had as always the Immortal
> Beloved in mind...
Yes, my Belovedity may be in question, but (a sort of) Immortality seems
pretty well assured, now that google is putting out 3 copies each of my
less deserving posts... :)
Lena (occasionally mildly internet-impaired)
Lena
Being able to wreck a ship while standing still is always a mark of
superior ability... :)
(I haven't heard Backhaus - I think his HK is only available with everything
else?)
But after all these interesting versions, I am starting to get a hankering
to hear how majestic Florence Foster-Jenkins might sound in this piece... :)
Lena
monsieu...@gmail.com
Théo Amon
> Richter, Pollini, Ashkenazy, O'Conor?
Arrau (if you listen to him with the score, you'll be amazed at the precision of his dynamic and agogic nuances);
Kempff (both mono and stereo versions, perhaps with some edge to the stereo one. Most beautiful Adagio out there).
I agree that Schnabel's Adagio is unique, but his last movement is simply shameful, it ruins the whole evening.
Herman
> Kempff (both mono and stereo versions, perhaps with some edge to the stereo one. Most beautiful Adagio out there).
>
I'd say Brendel is in the Kempff camp, as far as making the music not too monumental, especially in the first half of the Adagio. The way Brendel observes the scale of the music is pretty special, too.
howie...@btinternet.com
It turned out to be Brendel, a live performance from Vienna, probably the recording you have.
Herman
>
> It turned out to be Brendel, a live performance from Vienna, probably the recording you have.
graham
Graham
Herman
> >
> Is that the 1995 recording published in 1996?
> Graham
Herman
>
> In what way? Please elaborate.
> HJ Lim is also quite successful
> in making the music not sound
> too monumental, but rather
> playful and joyous IMHO.
>
> dk
it's here on YT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3nY_jVaWL8
Herman
You probably didn't even listen.
Closed mind.
graham
weary flake
> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 2:52:19 AM UTC-7, Herman wrote:
>> You probably didn't even listen.
>>
>> Closed mind.
>
> every note from the beginning to
> the end, waiting for some music.
>
> After he finished, I listened
> again to HJ Lim's Hammerklavier.
> Now I am listening to the Brahms
> PC2 served with fresh Limonade.
>
> I actually have all 3 Brendel
> LvB Sonata sets, collecting
> dust on some shelf in my
> music library. A long time
> ago I was auto-buying all
> LvB sonata sets by major
> pianists. Definitely not
> the wisest investment! ;-)
Since you say you hate Beethoven, is that why
you advocate HJ Lim, because you feel she
would hurt Beethoven like he deserves? I've
got a bunch of Beethoven cycles myself but I
didn't buy into him with a loathing. I also
listened to HJ Lim's Hammerklavier but I don't
think she made it sound like a Brahms concerto
with lemon.