And while I'm at it, anyone like a complete set of all four?
>people's favorite recordings of these four concerti? My favorite #2 (this
>week, at least) seems to be Rubinstein/Reiner. Any opinions on the various
>Ashkenazys (Previn and/or Fistoulari and/or Kondrashin)? Katchen/Solti?
>Graffman/Bernstein? I'm referring to any and all of the concerti. Not just
>#2. I suspect some of the ones I'm mentioning are OOP.
IIRC, we had a thread on this not too long ago.
All 4: Orozco in stereo. (I keep meaning to play these again; it's
been too long.) Rach.'s own, of course, in mono. Alas, neither has
an uncut 3- Rach's is seriously butchered.
2: Vasary/DG, on the slow side at 36 minutes but quite beautiful. He
also does well in 1. I remember Graffman as a strong performance,
but haven't heard it on CD; it would need one heck of a remaster to
save it sonically.
3: Cliburn, which seems slow but eventually rolls over you like a
steamroller. Gutierrez is a good version that uses the more
arpeggio-like cadenza that Rach. recorded. The best Horowitz version
I've heard is the live Barbirolli/NYPSO on APR.
4: Michelangeli, but of course.
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA
"My reputation has nothing to do with me." - Terry Gilliam
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Usually I check first. Let me look again. Thanks for the comments below
For #2 and the Paganini Rhapsody, I'm hopelessly imprinted on
Rubinstein/Reiner/Chicago SO/RCA. For a complete set, I like
Ashkenazy/Previn/London SO/Decca. I've read many good reviews of
Hough/Litton/Dallas SO/Hyperion, but this group doesn't approve because
Hough is neither dead nor Russian.
Wild is very good in the Paganini Rhapsody, perhaps the best I've heard.
For the concerti I like:
#1 Janis, Zimerman, Pletnev, Andsnes
#2 Richter, Grimaud II, Berezovsky II, Andsnes
#3 Volodos, Berezovsky II, Argerich,
#4 Ashkenazy II, Michelangeli
The Berezovsky ones are on Mirare. Of recent recordings I'd recommend that
CD and the Andsnes on EMI.
Decca had reissued these recordings (in this coupling) more than once. In the
Legends series e.g. Still available as far as I know.
For #3, you owe it to yourself to be hear Gieseking/Mengelberg.
Completely unlike any other performance I'm familiar with, it turns
the music into a Wagnerian tragedy.
#2 - Zilberstein/Abbado, Richter/Wislocki, Andsnes/Pappano
#3- Volodos/Levine is simply amazing. Then Hough/Litton. Also
Argerich/Chally (even though Chailly's conducting is unimpressive and
#4 - Hough/Litton, Michelangeli
For a complete set Hough/Litton is my first choice, followed by
Wild/Horenstein (as remastered by Chandos).
You're seriously in need of some Rx.
Yes, that's fun listening, never mind the clinkers. Aside of that,
Ashkenazy/Fistoulari/Kondrashin and Weissenberg/Pretre are the ones I
like best for 2 and 3.
Because a pianist are coming from Australia - Land of
kangaroos and silly hats? Because orchestra are coming
from Dallas - JR's and Bobby's hometown (most in Finland
better known Dallas from old television drama)?
I have also this recording. I'm not sure is it a best, but not
so poor as you implied.
Are you a licensed pharmacist?
Oh, you misunderstand me.
It is very competent.
And if you admire competence, then that may be the version for you.
But I actually want more in SR, either the composer himself, who is sui
generis, or someone who can bring his or her own genius to this music.
Competence, I am afraid, simply doesn't "cut it" for me.
I one of those Canadian mavericks you read about, selling meds for less
to impoverished Americans whose government is determined to keep the
drug companies rich and them poor.
What ails you?
I mean, apart from your deafness, that is?
Someone who can hear.
I am....... do i get more respect now :-))))
The quick answer?
Rachmaninov gives his own
works the prom treatment.
Allergy to mooseshit.
> Competence, I am afraid, simply doesn't "cut it" for me.
Ah, yes, charm and elegance - qualities that even Richter often
Can understand that...
"Newberry had been dubbed Michigan's Moose Capital."
"Moose rides shotgun in Massachusetts car."
"I wandered up Brewery Gulch (Bisbee, Arizona) to St Elmo's Bar. A
huge moose head on the back wall was adorned with female underwear."
Better try geese, then.
> Better try geese, then.
As long as you feed them corn mash for two weeks before slaughter and
use only their sickened livers, I'm fine with that.
In fact, more than fine. The liver of a fattened goose is one of God's
greatest gifts to man.
God intended them to be gifts to Geese.
What "Richter often lacks" is an identification with certain composers
(or charm and elegance, your call). His Chopin is totally unidiomatic.
He is cited often when recordings of this composer's music are brought
up, yet I suspect it's his technique which brings him through, not
anything particularly meaningful or beautiful to say (or sing or dance
about, more accurately). I've rather gone off his Scriabin too. A
tremendous 5th sonata in many ways, but his stasis in the quieter
passages goes against the nervous undercurrent I expect from this
composer. He wasn't perfect. Surprise.
In the beginning.
But after seven days he made man.
Actually no surprise.
But you are right about the Chopin. Totally unidiomatic. Not even
fascinating or intriguing. Just plain wrong.
Watch out then, because He might make another species who will come
after YOUR liver!!
I agree with both Tony and Tom here. Richter was a giant of a pianist
- but his Chopin just too pent up and overbearing - I feel that way
about his Ravel as well. His greatness flourishes when he is well
matched with the right composer e.g. some Beethoven, Prokofiev, most
Ones that I dislike but many people like: Hough #2 (rushed), Wild's
complete set (often rushed, poor tone), two of the three Horowitz #3s
(ugly & rushed; the good one is rushed but not ugly), all the
Ashkenazys (brittle tone, often rushed), Giesecking #3 (no longer
Rachmaninovian in character), Grimaud #2 (weak), and Pletnev #3
(ugliest Rach I ever heard).
That's a lot of un-favorites and a few favorites, but of course just my
They don't even seem to be playing the same music, and if they are, it's
only to see who can finish first.
Try to track down the CD of his conducting. Isle of the Dead sounds
considerably more "modern" than in many modern recordings.
Can I tell somebody in the DEA you sell cannabis seeds?
He already invented wine!!!
> JohnGavin wrote:
> > Ah, yes, charm and elegance - qualities that even Richter often
> > lacks.........
> What "Richter often lacks" is an identification with certain composers
> (or charm and elegance, your call). His Chopin is totally unidiomatic.
> He is cited often when recordings of this composer's music are brought
> up, yet I suspect it's his technique which brings him through, not
> anything particularly meaningful or beautiful to say (or sing or dance
> about, more accurately).
But those two Praga Nocturnes!! And the Polonaise-Fantasie!
That has nothing to do with virtuosity.
> Can I tell somebody in the DEA you sell cannabis seeds?
Why of course.
They can come and have a cup of tea.
> Ones that I dislike but many people like: Hough #2 (rushed), Wild's
> complete set (often rushed, poor tone), two of the three Horowitz #3s
> (ugly & rushed; the good one is rushed but not ugly), all the
> Ashkenazys (brittle tone, often rushed),
How is Ashkenazy "rushed"?
Ashkenazy has ALWAYS been one of those pianists who played No. 3 "slow"
rather than "quick". And that from the early 1960s when I first heard
him play this in concert. He has never changed that approach.
> Ashkenazy has ALWAYS been one of those pianists who played No. 3 "slow"
> rather than "quick". And that from the early 1960s when I first heard
> him play this in concert. He has never changed that approach.
Yes, and not just No. 3.
I like that CD a lot, but the latter's hardly sensitive in the manner
you get from Moravec, Sokolov and even Cziffra, and the Nocturnes have
far too many (okay, there's no such thing as too many with these)
wonderful performances. Like I said, unidiomatic.
> For #2 and the Paganini Rhapsody, I'm hopelessly imprinted on
> Rubinstein/Reiner/Chicago SO/RCA.
Me too. I have all the CD reissues of these performances, and oddly enough,
the first one (from the mid-'80s--not a high point in the history of the
format) sounds best. Go figger.
Both on and off stage.
Perhaps you might consider the possibility that Ashkenazy's "tone" is
not his fault, but that of the Decca engineers, who inevitably turned
his piano into something resembling a amplified xzylophone. If you had
any experience of Ashkenazy in public - particularly when these
recordings were made - you would not be making senseless remarks about
I don't entirely agree. I've seen Ashkenazy live quite a few times in
the 70s, and clearly recall a punchy approach to the keyboard - like a
boxer. Of course, Decca's recordings amplified this problem - but
Ashkenazy's approach is captured even on the earlier Russian recording
of the Chopin Etudes.
Also, it's interesting that Alicia DeLarrocha's sound on Deccas, which
overlap to a great degree with Ashkenazy's time, isn't bad at all.
Yes, definitely, especially #1 & 4, but in the Chesky remsterings.
> > Perhaps you might consider the possibility that Ashkenazy's "tone" is
> > not his fault, but that of the Decca engineers, who inevitably turned
> > his piano into something resembling a amplified xzylophone. If you had
> > any experience of Ashkenazy in public - particularly when these
> > recordings were made - you would not be making senseless remarks about
> > his tone.
> > TD
> I don't entirely agree. I've seen Ashkenazy live quite a few times in
> the 70s, and clearly recall a punchy approach to the keyboard - like a
> boxer. Of course, Decca's recordings amplified this problem - but
> Ashkenazy's approach is captured even on the earlier Russian recording
> of the Chopin Etudes.
This is utter nonsense.
His Chopin Etudes from Russia reveal an incredible control of legato
and beautiful tone.
> Also, it's interesting that Alicia DeLarrocha's sound on Deccas, which
> overlap to a great degree with Ashkenazy's time, isn't bad at all.
Perhaps you never heard Larrocha either. Just try her Hispavox
recordings as recently remastered from the original tapes on Spanish
EMI and you will get a revelation.
Decca's piano sound has always sucked!
They are even better on LP.
But that is another matter, I suppose.
Your hearing has been de-sensitized from too many Tureck recordings.