Beethoven Piano sonatas
wagnerfan
and why??? Wagner Fan
Paige Turner
> Ifyou had to choose one integral set, stereo or mono, which would you choose
> and why??? Wagner Fan
For stereo, I would pick Stephen Kovacevich. For mono, Schnabel, Nat,
Gulda or Kempff, in that order. This is only complete sets. Many, many
great individual performances that are not part of a set (Richter,
Gilels, Moravec, Rubinstein, Levy, Annie Fischer, Rosen, and so on). I
think it's fair to say that Kovacevich is the reigning Beethoven
interpreter of our age, replacing Brendel (an estimable player,
without question).
Best,
pt
alla...@mac.com
> Ifyou had to choose one integral set, stereo or mono, which would you choose
> and why??? Wagner Fan
Here's my quick homemade set:
1: Schnabel
2: Casadesus
3: Richter
4: ABM
5: Gilels
6: Schnabel
7: Horowitz
8: E. Fischer (1938)
9: Gieseking
10: Gilels
11: Richter
12: Richter
13: Gilels
14: Moravec
15: Sofronitsky
16: my least favorite; I might leave it out!
17: Solomon
18: Rubinstein
19 & 20: Gilels (or omit)
21: Gilels
22: Richter
23: Richter (live, Moscow)
24: Casadesus
25: Gelber
26: Moravec
27: Moravec
28: Gilels
29: Gilels
30: Gilels
31: Gilels
32: Levy
many runners-up for many of these spots, of course...
Allan
ukrneal
You can get the Kovacevich (EMI) for $60 right now on Amazon, which is
a decent price.
Paige Turner
>
> You can get the Kovacevich (EMI) for $60 right now on Amazon, which is
> a decent price.
Yes, it's very decently priced, and it includes the Bagatelles, which
Kovacevigh plays supremely well (his old recording for Philips is just
as good, though, and to my ears is better recorded).
Best,
pt
td
> and why??? Wagner Fan
For you?
Philippe Entremont. A genius!!!
TD
JohnGavin
Very interesting list. I won't comment on any particular choice only
than to say that for #29, I would specify Gilels live.
Paige Turner
shellac and widely available thanks to our esteemed cap'n, I think he
gives Schnabel a run for his money in the sonatas that Kempff
recorded. So does Harold Bauer. The sound can be pretty atrocious, but
the piano sounds like a piano in those old 78s. And what musicianship!
Best,
pt
Simon Roberts
>
>Ifyou had to choose one integral set, stereo or mono, which would you choose
>and why??? Wagner Fan
For a stereo set I would choose Kovacevich because comes closer than anyone else
who's recorded a complete set in stereo to conveying the drama and poetry, the
extrovert and introvert, the masculine and feminine (or however you want to put
it) - as I understand them, anyway - better than anyone else (which isn't to say
there aren't individual sonatas where I prefer someone else or like someone else
as much). That said, I wouldn't want to be without a few other sets, including
Gulda/Amadeo (not the earlier Decca), Heisieck/EMI and Lucchesini/Stradivarius.
Mono: Schnabel/Pearl; Ciani (lousy sound, but sublime slow movements)
Simon
Simon Roberts
>and why??? Wagner Fan
For a stereo set I would choose Kovacevich because comes closer than anyone else
Bart K. Prins
> Ifyou had to choose one integral set, stereo or mono, which would you
> choose and why??? Wagner Fan
A friend of mine drew my attention to Badura-Skoda's performances on Astrée.
Delightful play on wonderful old instruments. My favourite.
randy...@gmail.com
Are your Gilels selections strictly the DG recordings?
wimpie
I can't remember he did all of the Beethoven sonatas???
W.
alla...@mac.com
> Are your Gilels selections strictly the DG recordings?
That's what I was thinking of, yes. I favored the idea of a single
viewpoint on the late sonatas (although EG, of course, didn't live to
record Op. 111). His measured approach here won't be to all tastes,
needless to say.
Allan
td
Indeed.
And a lot of doubt about many of these choices.
Frankly, I believe that a single view of these sonatas should be a
part of any collection. The question is: which would I choose.
Since Wagnerfan is a twisted crypto Nazi cumrag, I find it hard to
pick a complete set which would suit his, shall I say, "tendencies".
Sado-masochistic Beethoven is not really my thing. Or anyone else's I
would think. But Wagnerfan is very special, so, I am trying to come up
with a suggestion which would not insult the musician selected. So
far, I am stumped.
TD
td
No, but surely he did the Moonlight sonata and that would be right on
the level of the OP. As for the rest, well, he would be salivating for
more PE.
TD
Bob Lombard
Hah! This is one or your best posts, Tom. I hope Wagner Fan appreciates
the deftness of the obfuscation, and can absorb the weight of the slam.
bl
wagnerfan
news:ae91759d-0bb1-42f8...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
W.
He recorded the complete Piano Concerti but not, I think, all of the
sonatas. Wagner fan
wagnerfan
news:gmafr...@drn.newsguy.com...
Wagner fan
td
Impossible.
Dumb fuck, Bob. He likes Wagner, remember.
TD
td
> "Simon Roberts" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:gmafr...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> > In article <IPWdnSfdu91eKhXUnZ2dnUVZ_ojin...@giganews.com>, wagnerfan
> > says...
>
> >>Ifyou had to choose one integral set, stereo or mono, which would you
> >>choose
> >>and why??? Wagner Fan
>
> > For a stereo set I would choose Kovacevich because comes closer than
> > anyone else
> > who's recorded a complete set in stereo to conveying the drama and poetry,
> > the
> > extrovert and introvert, the masculine and feminine (or however you want
> > to put
> > it) - as I understand them, anyway - better than anyone else (which isn't
> > to say
> > there aren't individual sonatas where I prefer someone else or like
> > someone else
> > as much). That said, I wouldn't want to be without a few other sets,
> > including
> > Gulda/Amadeo (not the earlier Decca), Heisieck/EMI and
> > Lucchesini/Stradivarius.
>
> > Mono: Schnabel/Pearl; Ciani (lousy sound, but sublime slow movements)
>
> > Simon
>
> After reading Simon and some other reviews. I am going for the Kovacevich!!!
> Wagner fan
I shall have to inform him of this very sad news. The very idea that
one of his creations would land in the hands of a crypto-nazi cumrag
would drive him to drink!!!
TD
wagnerfan
news:gmafr...@drn.newsguy.com...
gperkins151
> One comment: now that the Kempff Polydors are liberated from the
> shellac and widely available thanks to our esteemed cap'n,
Where are these available, please?
All this love for Kovacevich makes me very confused. Although I think
his set is among the good ones, I can't say that it is great. Too much
steely pounding for me and not enough poetry in the slow movements.
My pick is easy - Annie Fischer on Hungaroton. For the why, I have
pasted my amazon review:
I happen to know for a fact that there are a number of you out there
who are finding it hard to decide to pay the asking price for this
set. Therefore, I shall try to explain why you should do so,
immediately.
First of all, I will say that I own complete cycles by Goode, Gulda,
Fischer, Schnabel, Kempff (mono), Kovacevich and Backhaus (stereo.) Of
these, Annie's is my favorite complete set. Easily. I also own single/
double discs by Serkin, Richter, Moravec, Horowitz, Gilels, O'Conor,
Pollini, Kempff (stereo), Arrau, Brendel, Jando and Rubinstein. Annie
also trumps many of these as well.
Secondly, I must say that Annie's cycle is remarkably consistent, I
think she does excellent or superb on 25 of the 32. In the others, she
is fair or good. In my experience, this is no small feat, in fact only
Gulda equals her in consistency, though not in quality. Gulda tends to
rush through these works, an aspect which doesn't always come off well
and even when it does, he still lack's Fischer's depth. Schnabel's
legendary set, now available on Naxos from European sellers with
excellent transfers by Mark Obert-Thorn, is of course very consistent
and superbly played. However, many will likely (and unfortunately)
pass on this set due to the historical sound. Kempff plays these works
on a smaller scale that doesn't always work for me, though few can
match his tone and beauty. Backhaus's more masculine approach is more
to my liking, though his fastish slow movements, like Gulda, lack
depth. Kovacevich's set is more (too) aggressive than even Annie's,
who is surprisingly aggressive when needed and deeply touching and
sensitive when appropriate. She handles all three of the main periods
of Lvb's works with equal achievement, an incredible achievement.
Third, the quality of her playing simply has to be heard to be
believed. The opening to her Appassionata sonata dispels all worries
that you might have that she isn't up the job. You can listen here at
Amazon on the page that holds the single disc from this set. It sounds
like thunder from the heavens, as does the finale here and in the
Moonlight Sonata. She finds young energy in the early works and
confident strength and power in the heroic middle sonatas. Her Op. 31
is easily my favorite, combining a great sense of rhythm, drama and
beauty. Her Late Sonatas are incredibly profound and gorgeous. Without
resorting to some of the more extreme tempo choices others have made,
she finds a style all her own that works magnificently. In fact, her
tempo choices are almost always just right, never rushing, nor letting
the tempo sag.
Fourth, when compared to her closest rivals, Schnabel, Gulda, Backhaus
(stereo) and Kempff, her set has superior sound. She plays a
gorgeously dark sounding Bosendorfer that was recorded remarkably
well. Her recordings were made in the 70's and 80's and the close
miking accurately conveys her sweet tone and powerful fortes. Sure,
Goode and Kovacevich may have better sound, but IMO they don't play at
her level. Goode's interpretations lack excitement at times, while
Kovacevich seems to focus a bit too much on excitement.
Fifth, you will notice that the price changes from time to time by
some of the marketplace sellers, buying it now saves you from paying
more for it later. More importantly, there may not even be a later,
for this set is hard to find as it is. This can certainly suggest that
it may not stay in print. With talent like this, why gamble? This is
mostly a matter of taste of course, I suggest that you listen to the
samples here and compare for yourself. I really don't think that
you'll be sorry if you choose Annie, though!
-George
Simon Roberts
L'Esattore 22
> Ifyou had to choose one integral set, stereo or mono, which would you choose
> and why??? Wagner Fan
there are many great integral sets available.
But for the last 5 sonatas I've only one name: Maurizio Pollini.
--
L'Esattore
a Randy Pausch.
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in
news:l6zbench56nc.1u...@40tude.net:
> *wagnerfan* ha scritto:
>
>> Ifyou had to choose one integral set, stereo or mono, which would you
>> choose and why??? Wagner Fan
>
> there are many great integral sets available.
> But for the last 5 sonatas I've only one name: Maurizio Pollini.
I enjoyed those LPs very much in the late '70s, but haven't heard them since
then. Perhaps I should get a CD reissue?
--
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
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
randy...@gmail.com
> L'Esattore 22 <vdeiul...@NOSPAMsupereva.it> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed innews:l6zbench56nc.1u...@40tude.net:
>
> > *wagnerfan* ha scritto:
>
> >> Ifyou had to choose one integral set, stereo or mono, which would you
> >> choose and why??? Wagner Fan
>
> > there are many great integral sets available.
> > But for the last 5 sonatas I've only one name: Maurizio Pollini.
>
> I enjoyed those LPs very much in the late '70s, but haven't heard them since
> then. Perhaps I should get a CD reissue?
>
> --
> Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
> 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
> Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Yes, you should.
The performance still stand tall above others, and they are available
in a DG Originals two-fer for a pittance - just $18.23 incl shipping
form Amazon Marketplace seller ImportCds of Covina , CA - your
nieghborhood I believe.
L'Esattore 22
> I enjoyed those LPs very much in the late '70s, but haven't heard them since
> then. Perhaps I should get a CD reissue?
to me those performances haven't equals. Probably is one of the greatest
recordings ever made, like Zimerman's Four Ballades (Chopin), Lupu's
Impromptus (Schubert)...
I have (only) the cd reissue: that reissue seems to have a great remastered
stereo sound, but sometimes on the peaks of the last sonata you can listen
to little distortions.
Nevertheless it's one of the few must have.
Old Listener
> On Feb 3, 2:31 pm, "wagnerfan" <wagner...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > If you had to choose one integral set, stereo or mono, which would you choose
> > and why??? Wagner Fan
>
> Here's my quick homemade set:
>
> 1: Schnabel
That's unusual. Not one overlap with my favorites. Usually I have
some overlap with someone else's favorites.
bill
Paige Turner
> *wagnerfan* ha scritto:
>
> > Ifyou had to choose one integral set, stereo or mono, which would you choose
> > and why??? Wagner Fan
>
> there are many great integral sets available.
> But for the last 5 sonatas I've only one name: Maurizio Pollini.
>
It has been years since I've listened to Pollini's late sonatas. I did
hear him do a tremendous Hammerklavier in concert. And I mean
tremendous, unforgettable. Another late set that people tend to forget
is Horszowski's on Vox. I find it very satisfying. And Horszowski
recorded my favorite Op. 110 of all time. It appeared on Pearl in a
Horszowski collection. The Op. 110 was recorded in Italy in 1958. I
have never heard it equalled, it even surpasses Schnabel. Maybe
Volodos after a few years of playing it can equal Horszowski -- he is
following a similar blueprint.
Best,
pt
gperkins151
> On Feb 3, 2:31 pm, "wagnerfan" <wagner...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > and why??? Wagner Fan
>
> 1: Schnabel...
Hi Allan,
I'll give this a try (where I have a tie for #1's I have picked names
that haven't appeared yet, where possible.)
Op 2/1 - Schnabel
Op 2/2 - Hungerford
Op 2/3 - Goode
Op. 7 - Richter
Op 10/1 - Kovacevich
Op 10/2 - Kovacevich
Op. 10/3 - Schnabel
Pathetique - Moravec
Op. 14/1 - Gulda
Op. 14/2 - Barenboim
Op. 22 - Goode
Op. 26 - Richter Praga
Op. 28/1 - A Fischer
Moonlight Lupu (GPOTC)
Pastoral Kovacevich
Op. 31 Annie Fischer
Op. 49 Gulda
Op. 53 Waldstein - Serkin (mono) on M&A
Op. 54 A Fischer
Appassionata - A Fischer
Op. 78 - Barenboim
Op. 79 - Goode
Op. 81a - Gilels
Op. 90, 101 - Annie Fischer
Op. 106 - Hammerklavier - Pollini
Op. 109 - Serkin (mono, Sony)
Op. 110 - Serkin (1960, stereo, Sony)
Op. 111 - Yudina (Vista Vera)
Paige Turner
> On Feb 3, 5:08 pm, Paige Turner <paigeturner2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One comment: now that the Kempff Polydors are liberated from the
> > shellac and widely available thanks to our esteemed cap'n,
>
> Where are these available, please?
Cap'n Neal did the transfers. The URL for his website is
http://nealshistoricalcorner.blogspot.com/
This issue is one of the most important pianistic releases of the past
year. He did two batches of Kempff acoustics.
Best,
pt
Dan Fowler
Schnabel performances just this week and marveling at the consistently
wonderful interpretations. The performances make me forget the limitations
of the recordings.
Still, I would probably pick the Kovacevich EMI set if forced to go that
that mythical desert island with just one set. I love the quality of the
recorded sound and find Kovacevich's interpretations consistently
outstanding. If I could cheat, I would take Annie Fischer's set (and Nat's,
and the mono Kempff set that introduced me to many of the sonatas). But
Kovacevich and Fischer are definitely in my top rank.
A sentimental, but incomplete set, is the one left to us by Bruce
Hungerford. His performances are among my personal favorites for many of the
sonatas.
Dan
"wagnerfan" <wagn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IPWdnSfdu91eKhXU...@giganews.com...
Matthew B. Tepper
evening, and they had his EMI box available for something like $35. No, I
didn't buy it, but it's there in case any local might be interested.
--
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
Kirk McElhearn
>> Ifyou had to choose one integral set, stereo or mono, which would you choose
>> and why??? Wagner Fan
>
> For stereo, I would pick Stephen Kovacevich.
Hmm, I find that Kovacevich overplays too often. My pick would be
Barenboim's DG set. His style is lyrical and subtle when necessary, but
he can be agressive at times, whereas Kovacevich is agressive too often.
Kirk
--
Read my blog, Kirkville
http://www.mcelhearn.com
td
Hmmmmmm.
Well, that may be your opinion; it is also shared by others.
But I simply do not buy it.
TD
CharlesSmith
My collection is very limited, so I can't start to answer the OP's
question. But I do have the Pollini late sonatas, and agree that his
Hammerklavier is tremendous - enormous energy and clarity.
However, I also have Demidenko's Hammerklavier, and it's just as
powerful and exciting. He also, in comparison, makes Pollini sound
rather clean and clinical. Demidenko adds another dimension - makes
the piano snarl and growl while still maintaining great clarity. Might
be a feature of his mega-Fazioli piano, and not to everyones taste,
but IMO it's a great performance (and, who knows, might well appear to
a wagnerfan).
L'Esattore 22
> Volodos
I've heard Arcadi Volodos last year in Rome, playing Rachmaninov's third
piano concert. I don't like so much that concert (I think that piano
concert no.2 is much better, and is music, not technicism), but I've to
admit that Volodos was really great. Previn wes concucting Orchestra
dell'accademia di Santa Cecilia.
td
> On 2009-02-03 22:37:06 +0100, Paige Turner <paigeturner2...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >> Ifyou had to choose one integral set, stereo or mono, which would you choose
> >> and why??? Wagner Fan
>
> > For stereo, I would pick Stephen Kovacevich.
>
> Hmm, I find that Kovacevich overplays too often. My pick would be
> Barenboim's DG set. His style is lyrical and subtle when necessary, but
> he can be agressive at times, whereas Kovacevich is agressive too often.
Frankly, Beethoven is an aggressive composer more often than not.
This is NOT a recommendation for Kovacevich, whom I admire enormously,
but simply a retort for such a facile statement.
TD
gperkins151
>
> >> Ifyou had to choose one integral set, stereo or mono, which would you choose
> >> and why??? Wagner Fan
>
> > For stereo, I would pick Stephen Kovacevich.
>
> Hmm, I find that Kovacevich overplays too often. My pick would be
> Barenboim's DG set. His style is lyrical and subtle when necessary, but
> he can be agressive at times, whereas Kovacevich is agressive too often.
While I agree with Tom that Beethoven's music is aggressive, if you
meant overaggressive here, Kirk, I absolutely agree with you. I can
also understand why someone who liked Berenboim wouldn't like
Kovacevich. As I said earlier, the Kovacevich is good, just as the
Barenboim is too, for very different reasons. In fact, I think there
are many good sets out there, Schnabel, Kempff (mono), Goode and Nat.
IMO, the greats are (in order) Annie Fischer, Gulda's Amadeo/Brilliant
Classics, Gilels (incomplete, but solid and consistent) and Backhaus
(stereo, haven't heard the mono.) This is of course a very personal
choice (I should mention that I haven't heard Arrau's set), but to me
the best part of all this is that we have so many good sets to choose
from. Beethoven's sonatas have been served very well on recordings.
George
td
gperkins151 wrote:
(I should mention that I haven't heard Arrau's set)
What?
And you are writing about Beethoven sonatas? Arrau recorded them
almost three times, the first try for EMI incomplete, the second
complete, the third complete except for the Hammerklavier, and perhaps
the Moonlight, I think.
The second is a legendary set, truly. One can quibble with a lot of
things, but Arrau stands like a giant before most of the pygmies
mentioned here, including Kovacevich, whom I admire greatly. Next to
Arrau, there are only Kempff and Schnabel. The rest are pretenders to
the Beethoven crown. Really.
TD
Paige Turner
Not so really. Arrau's Beethoven studio recordings are very uneven. In
some sonatas he didn't get the rhythms right, he accented wrong and
ended up screwing up the piece. Some of his concert recordings
(Ermitage) show a completely different pianist, he really catches fire
and plays spontaneously, philosophy be damned. That's the Arrau I
prefer. I was at a concert where he started with Beethoven, really
terrible, but in the second half he got inspired and played some of
the best Debussy I have ever heard, breathtaking pianism. But the
Beethoven really sucked, it sounded deconstructed, for want of a
better word. The organicity that is so central to Beethoven was lost.
Your list of pygmies includes cats like Richter, Gilels, Kovacevich,
Annie Fischer and Gulda, huh?
Best,
pt
alla...@mac.com
> Hi Allan,
>
> I'll give this a try (where I have a tie for #1's I have picked names
> that haven't appeared yet, where possible.)
Interesting list, George. There's obviously some overlap--as well as
some divergence--in our tastes in this repertoire. As my list shows, I
tend to like a "Russian" Beethoven. Beyond Schnabel (who, of course,
has his rough patches), I'm not fond of most complete sets or of
"Beethoven specialists". Goode, who has wit and flair, recorded my
favorite modern complete version. But in general I tend to prefer the
recordings of pianists who tackled this repertoire more selectively
(E. Fischer, Levy, Richter, Moravec, etc.). Of course, three of my
favorites were attempting to create complete sets but failed for one
reason or another (Solomon, Gilels, Gelber).
Allan
alla...@mac.com
> Another late set that people tend to forget
> is Horszowski's on Vox. I find it very satisfying. And Horszowski
> recorded my favorite Op. 110 of all time. It appeared on Pearl in a
> Horszowski collection. The Op. 110 was recorded in Italy in 1958. I
> have never heard it equalled, it even surpasses Schnabel.
You turned me on to this recording many moons ago, and it remains in
my top 3 for Op. 110, along with E. Fischer & Gilels.
Allan
gperkins151
> On Feb 3, 4:46 pm, allan...@mac.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 2:31 pm, "wagnerfan" <wagner...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > and why??? Wagner Fan
>
>
> > 1: Schnabel
> > 3: Richter
> > 4: ABM
> > 5: Gilels
> > 6: Schnabel
> > 7: Horowitz
> > 8: E. Fischer (1938)
> > 9: Gieseking
> > 10: Gilels
> > 11: Richter
> > 12: Richter
> > 13: Gilels
> > 14: Moravec
> > 15: Sofronitsky
> > 16: my least favorite; I might leave it out!
> > 17: Solomon
> > 18: Rubinstein
> > 19 & 20: Gilels (or omit)
> > 21: Gilels
> > 22: Richter
> > 23: Richter (live, Moscow)
> > 24: Casadesus
> > 25: Gelber
> > 26: Moravec
> > 27: Moravec
> > 28: Gilels
> > 29: Gilels
> > 30: Gilels
> > 31: Gilels
> > 32: Levy
>
> > many runners-up for many of these spots, of course...
>
> Indeed.
>
> And a lot of doubt about many of these choices.
>
> Frankly, I believe that a single view of these sonatas should be a
> part of any collection. The question is: which would I choose.
>
> Since Wagnerfan is a twisted crypto Nazi cumrag, I find it hard to
> pick a complete set which would suit his, shall I say, "tendencies".
> Sado-masochistic Beethoven is not really my thing. Or anyone else's I
> would think. But Wagnerfan is very special, so, I am trying to come up
> with a suggestion which would not insult the musician selected. So
> far, I am stumped.
>
> TD
He didn't ask for some personalized recommendation, he said:
If you had to choose one integral set, stereo or mono, which would you
choose
and why???
Is it so hard to do this? He want's your personal favorite and why,
that's it. So far you have done little more than throw stones at those
of us who honored the OP's request.
George
gperkins151
Yes, I am writing about Beethoven sonatas. I listed preferred set and
described why I chose it, which is what the OP asked for. Unless I
missed something, he didn't ask for which ones were "legendary" or who
were the "pretenders." Unless I have also missed it, you haven't
answered the OP's question either.
What I have heard of Arrau's expansive Beethoven (about a third of the
set) was not to my liking, otherwise I would have gotten the whole
set. I think Gilels handles this approach much better. The more I hear
Arrau, Kempff and Kovacevich, the more I understand just how very
subjective this all is. Sure, these sets are loved by many, but that
doesn't mean we all have to love them, does it? In the case of
Schnabel, we have something much more special, I think. His was the
very first recorded set of the 32, plus the fact that his playing best
approximates the (albeit reported) style of the composer (rough around
the edges and impulsive) with a depth to the slow movements that most
pianists rarely find. I think Gilels does an incredible job the slow
movements, often achieving the depth that Schnabel finds.
Unfortunately, unlike Schnabel (and like Arrau) the outer movements
are often slow and unexciting.
George
John Thomas
don't have to. I busted my budget buying Annie's set about five years
ago and have never regretted it.
JohnGavin
>
> - Show quoted text -
I attended an all-Beethoven recital in NYC by Arrau in the 70s. The
word that comes to mind is lacklustre - completely and utterly safe
playing with no surprises or life energy. I have never caught the
Arrau fever. I'll take it on faith that he gave great performances
under the right circumstances.
The Iberia that he recorded is horrendous. Albeniz as Brahms (and
boring Brahms at that).
Matthew B. Tepper
in news:b98fccea-8081-4a6f...@r41g2000prr.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 3, 5:46 pm, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I enjoyed those LPs [Pollini late sonatas] very much in the late '70s, but
>> haven't heard them since then. Perhaps I should get a CD reissue?
>
> Yes, you should.
> The performance still stand tall above others, and they are available
> in a DG Originals two-fer for a pittance - just $18.23 incl shipping
> form Amazon Marketplace seller ImportCds of Covina , CA - your
> nieghborhood I believe.
Thanks!
--
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
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in
Thanks!
gperkins151
Yes, when Iisten to Arrau (or Kempff for that matter) I get the sense
that I am hearing Beethoven played by my grandfather. I don't want to
hear my grandfather play Beethoven.
George
gperkins151
> Thanks, George, for posting this extended recommendation so that I
> don't have to. I busted my budget buying Annie's set about five years
> ago and have never regretted it.
That set has gotten more and more expensive too, so buyers should not
be waiting for it to come down in price, although I heard that
Qualiton has a 20% off sale this time of year. Might be worth looking
into.
George
td
Sorry, but I don't pay attention to Patty Paige.
TD
td
Not sure which "third" you listened to, or how familiar you are with
these scores as scores.
But although his last set might make you think of a grandfather
playing the piano - like Backhaus, perhaps? or Kempff? - his
recordings, particularly the middle set, remain a model for a whole
generation of real pianists, as opposed to record buyers.
I still think you should persevere and listen to the other two thirds,
and then listen again and again and again.
As for John, I think one recital is an insufficient familiarity with
Arrau, whose playing really does have to be listened to many times in
order to be appreciated. The Iberia, by the way, is not my favourite
either, but I respect what he was trying to do with this music.
Finally, I really detest words like "suck", "screwed up" and such
generlized slurs. They add absolutely nothing to this debate.
TD
alla...@mac.com
> What I have heard of Arrau's expansive Beethoven (about a third of the
> set) was not to my liking, otherwise I would have gotten the whole
> set. I think Gilels handles this approach much better. The more I hear
> Arrau, Kempff and Kovacevich, the more I understand just how very
> subjective this all is. Sure, these sets are loved by many, but that
> doesn't mean we all have to love them, does it? In the case of
> Schnabel, we have something much more special, I think. His was the
> very first recorded set of the 32, plus the fact that his playing best
> approximates the (albeit reported) style of the composer (rough around
> the edges and impulsive) with a depth to the slow movements that most
> pianists rarely find. I think Gilels does an incredible job the slow
> movements, often achieving the depth that Schnabel finds.
> Unfortunately, unlike Schnabel (and like Arrau) the outer movements
> are often slow and unexciting.
Nicely said. I'm in agreement with all this. I'll just add--and it
doesn't contradict your point--that sometimes Gilels can be quite
exciting in the outer mvmts (e.g., Opp. 53, 81a, 101). And I find a
depth and "wisdom" in his late Beethoven that I do not find in Pollini
and others.
Allan
Simon Roberts
td says...
>Not sure ... how familiar you are with
>these scores as scores.
As opposed to what, as wallpaper? Perhaps he's familiar enough with them to have
notice the tempo markings.
>But although his last set might make you think of a grandfather
>playing the piano - like Backhaus, perhaps? or Kempff? - his
>recordings, particularly the middle set, remain a model for a whole
>generation of real pianists, as opposed to record buyers.
No, only a model of how to make Beethoven sound like that. If that's how you
like Beethoven to sound, fine, but lots of us don't.
Simon
td
> In article <511686a7-a747-4d58-8458-6dd45d1d2...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> td says...
>
> >Not sure ... how familiar you are with
> >these scores as scores.
>
> As opposed to what, as wallpaper? Perhaps he's familiar enough with them to have
> notice the tempo markings.
LOL
I suppose you think such markings are absolute? You remind me of a
political ideologue.
> >But although his last set might make you think of a grandfather
> >playing the piano - like Backhaus, perhaps? or Kempff? - his
> >recordings, particularly the middle set, remain a model for a whole
> >generation of real pianists, as opposed to record buyers.
>
> No, only a model of how to make Beethoven sound like that.
Wrong. What I said was accurate. I will not list the pianists I know
personally who admire this set inordinately, but they are legion. I
will, however, cite Garrick Ohlsson, because he has been public about
his position.
> If that's how you like Beethoven to sound, fine, but lots of us don't.
As I say, record collectors have their preferences. But the use of
such terms as "screwed", etc., are simply ludicrous.
TD
gperkins151
I've heard the 2CDs of late sonatas, Op. 2 and a CD of the popular
sonatas. As for the scores, being familiar with scores has not changed
what I like in my Beethoven, nor in other composers for that matter.
> But although his last set might make you think of a grandfather
> playing the piano - like Backhaus, perhaps? or Kempff? - his
> recordings, particularly the middle set, remain a model for a whole
> generation of real pianists, as opposed to record buyers.
Even if this is true, I don't see how it should make me like Arrau's
performances any more. Sure it might make me respect the guy (I never
said I didn't) but that doesn't mean I enjoy his Beethoven simply
because he was influential.
> I still think you should persevere and listen to the other two thirds,
> and then listen again and again and again.
Sadly, there aren't enough hours in the day to hear all the Beethoven
(and other stuff) that I do like.
George
Simon Roberts
td says...
>
>On Feb 4, 11:18=A0am, Simon Roberts <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article <511686a7-a747-4d58-8458-6dd45d1d2...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> td says...
>>
>> >Not sure ... how familiar you are with
>> >these scores as scores.
>>
>to have
>> notice the tempo markings.
>
>LOL
>
>I suppose you think such markings are absolute? You remind me of a
>political ideologue.
And your fanatical devotion to Arrau reminds me of....
Simon
wagnerfan
"gperkins151
<gperk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4da5e014-47c6-4c51...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
George
Oh thats what TD does - why not ask him what he thinks of the Hatto complete
set - the poor deluded fool thinks he can go away and then come back hoping
that we all forgot about his ridiculous part in the Hatto affair (this is a
person who heard the exact same recording with two different names and came
up with two different appraisals - that shows you how much his opinion is
worth). No he didn't answer my question (opinions on integral sets of the
Beethoven sonatas) but I do appreciate the valuable information I received
from other posters here!!! thanks Wagner Fan
Paige Turner
> Oh thats what TD does - why not ask him what he thinks of the Hatto complete
> set - the poor deluded fool thinks he can go away and then come back hoping
> that we all forgot about his ridiculous part in the Hatto affair (this is a
> person who heard the exact same recording with two different names and came
> up with two different appraisals - that shows you how much his opinion is
> worth). No he didn't answer my question (opinions on integral sets of the
> Beethoven sonatas) but I do appreciate the valuable information I received
> from other posters here!!! thanks Wagner Fan
LOL, Hatto lives!
Best,
pt
td
>
> <gperkins...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
No he didn't answer my question (opinions on integral sets of the
> Beethoven sonatas) but I do appreciate the valuable information I received
> from other posters here!!!
Why would anyone care what a pathetic crypto-Nazi cumrag like
"WagnerFan" wants or doesn't want.
I sure as hell hope he does find that complete cycle with Philippe
Entremont. He deserves it!
TD
td
It is far too comfortable to listen only to what you like. You only
reaffirm what you already know.
Much harder to listen to what you don't know, or don't like, in fact.
This, indeed, is the very essence of David Gable's constant claim that
if only I were to listen to the music of Carter or Boulez I would like
it. Or, at least, know it better, so that I could better express why I
dislike it. He's right, of course. But I am older than he is and lazy
about such things.
Anyway, coziness does not always bring us to illumination.
TD
td
> In article <1091e401-cc60-40ad-9c7a-72d7900cc...@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Fanatical?
I think not.
But surely devoted.
TD
Simon Roberts
td says...
>Anyway, coziness does not always bring us to illumination.
Nor does Arrau.
Simon
alla...@mac.com
> Nor does Arrau.
Five pianists especially associated with the interpretation of
Beethoven are my five least favorite "major" pianists: Backhaus,
Kempff, Arrau, Serkin, and Brendel. (I use "major" out of deference to
the opinions of others.) No insult intended to their admirers, who
have their reward; just stating my own view, which was already
implicit, or nearly so, in my earlier list and comments.
I also reject the "eat-your-Brussels sprouts" approach to music, which
should be a matter of pleasure--in the fullest intellectual/emotional
sense. I do, though, advocate intellectual curiosity, so one should at
least try "everything" (in terms of both repertoire and
interpretation) at least once. But given the vastness of what's out
there, it's inevitable that we all end up with our own subjective
niches, packed with favorite works and performers.
Allan
O
<1f3d3ee3-081e-4326...@x6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, td
<tomde...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> I sure as hell hope he does find that complete cycle with Philippe
> Entremont. He deserves it!
Hey TD:
I've often wondered how Entremont got as far as he did. He had an OK
set of chops - he could play the notes, and I imagine there's some
repertoire that he's at least tolerable in, if not good -- but the guy
must've had a recording contract that anyone would die for! He
recorded everything for Columbia - they treated him like the French Van
Cliburn (which, of course, he wasn't).
-Owen, who's really not trying to dump on Entremont, except he seemed
to get a pretty good break in the business.
Simon Roberts
alla...@mac.com says...
True; some of us even like brussels sprouts!
Simon
Simon Roberts
>Five pianists especially associated with the interpretation of
>Beethoven are my five least favorite "major" pianists: Backhaus,
>Kempff, Arrau, Serkin, and Brendel.
I probably like some of them more than you do, but in almost every case (I'll
leave out Serkin) I prefer their playing in music other than Beethoven's,
sometimes in music they're not really associated with e.g. Arrau's sublime
recording of Mozart's Adagio in B Minor and Backhaus's 1920something Chopin
Preludes (I bet you wouldn't identify him as the pianist if listening "blind").
Simon
alla...@mac.com
> True; some of us even like brussels sprouts!
Of course. (Although I don't know whether you mean that literally,
metaphorically, or both. I simply chose brussels [or Brussels] sprouts
because I don't like 'em. The first thing that came to mind was
spinach, but I do like spinach.)
The thing that's "insidious" about the "eat-your-whatever" argument is
that it's almost always used by those who want you to like what they
like.
Allan
alla...@mac.com
> In article <a927d639-6ba8-43f3-ba14-6a33b647b...@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> allan...@mac.com says...
>
> >Five pianists especially associated with the interpretation of
> >Beethoven are my five least favorite "major" pianists: Backhaus,
> >Kempff, Arrau, Serkin, and Brendel.
>
> I probably like some of them more than you do, but in almost every case (I'll
> leave out Serkin) I prefer their playing in music other than Beethoven's,
> sometimes in music they're not really associated with e.g. Arrau's sublime
> recording of Mozart's Adagio in B Minor and Backhaus's 1920something Chopin
> Preludes (I bet you wouldn't identify him as the pianist if listening "blind").
I should hasten to add that I don't automatically dislike everything
by these pianists. I simply dislike their recordings on average more
than those of other major pianists.
Allan
richardmathisen
piano sonatas:
The best set depends to some extent on what you're looking for.
Of the 35 complete sets I own, I could recommend different ones for
different purposes. Overall, the set I'd recommend in most cases is
the Ashkenazy set on Decca. It's been available recently on Ebay for
about $30, which makes it a bargain as well my top choice.
What I look for in a complete set to recommend is, first, some really
outstanding performances. In the case of the Ashkenazy set, the
Tempest sonata, the Op 10-3 (which exceeds even the Horowitz in my
opinion), and the Op 101, which is better than the legendary Geza Anda
recording. Second, I look for consistency at a high level, meaning an
absence of clunkers (poor recordings). If you're going to buy only one
set, you want to get pretty decent recordings of most of the 32
sonatas. In the case of the Ashkenazy set, there are 29 of the 32 that
are very high quality recordings, and and even the other three are
decent. One surprising aspect of Ashkenazy's Beethoven (to me, at
least) is his textual fidelity, since I had previously viewed
Ashkenazy as primarily a specialist in music from the romantic period.
My second choice as a recommended set is the set by Claude Frank.
My third choice would be the Annie Fischer (rather expensive) or the
Barenboim DGG set, which is better than the earlier EMI or the later
videos, or the Kempff stereo set (which is better than the mono in my
minority opinion) or the Richard Goode.
I agree that in the last five sonatas the Pollini set is a must. I
would add that in the last three (Op 109, 110, 111) Richard Goode has
a single CD that is in the same class as Pollini in these three
important works.
To comment on an earlier note, the 8-CD Kempff stereo set is a re-
mastered version of the 9-CD Kempff stereo set, according to the DGG
liner notes.
Dick Mathisen
I must ad
wagnerfan
news:3432aa88-ed04-4013...@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Dick Mathisen
I must ad
Holy Cow - thirty five complete sets - I envy you!!!!!! I do recall the
Frank set received a wonderful review in High Fidelity when first issued on
LP in the 70s. Wagner Fan (who owns about fifty Rings!!!)
td
> Allan
>
> Holy Cow - thirty five complete sets - I envy you!!!!!! I do recall the
> Frank set received a wonderful review in High Fidelity when first issued on
> LP in the 70s. Wagner Fan (who owns about fifty Rings!!!)
But of course you do.
Any self-respecting opera queen has to have them all.
As I said several posts ago, a crypto-nazi cumrag.
TD
Paige Turner
> On Feb 4, 1:16 pm, Simon Roberts <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Nor does Arrau.
>
> Five pianists especially associated with the interpretation of
> Beethoven are my five least favorite "major" pianists: Backhaus,
> Kempff, Arrau, Serkin, and Brendel. (I use "major" out of deference to
> the opinions of others.) No insult intended to their admirers, who
> have their reward; just stating my own view, which was already
> implicit, or nearly so, in my earlier list and comments.
I don't like Backhaus and I have already written about Arrau (very hit
and miss), but the others are fine, and Kempff (Polydors especially,
and the mono set from the fifties) and Serkin (a few sonatas) are much
more than fine. When Serkin was on, his Beethoven had tremendous
force. His Hammerklavier and Diabellis, for example, or the
Pathetique. And he was the best performer of the Fantasia Op. 77,
swept the field.
Best,
pt
And Brendel, even in his weaker performances, is never actively bad or
boring to me, he has the right instinct for Beethoven.
Neil
> and why
Barenboim DGG because he audibly moves through the years, styles and
eras in 32 steps.
Neil Miller, author: The Piano Lessons Book & Piano Classics Analyzed
Methods and theory for confident memorized performances.
To buy, or view pages, search at Amazon.com and books.google.com –
Neil Miller Piano Lessons Book or Neil Miller Piano Analyzed
Rugby
> Ifyou had to choose one integral set, stereo or mono, which would you choose
Schnabel, with Gilels and DelPueyo also in "Hammerklavier", plus
Brendel's early 70's (?) Op.111.
If funds permitted, probably also Schiff and Lewis ( if/when they've
recorded the full cycle; have ?).
Rugby
wagnerfan
set as well as Schubert - I never heard of him Wagner fan
"wagnerfan" <wagn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IPWdnSfdu91eKhXU...@giganews.com...
david...@aol.com
> Five pianists especially associated with the interpretation of
> Beethoven are my five least favorite "major" pianists: Backhaus,
> Kempff, Arrau, Serkin, and Brendel.
I hope, at least, that you don’t think all of these guys are cut from
the same cloth. Because -- while I can live without most of them -- I
love Rudolf Serkin’s playing (a rare enthusiasm on this newsgroup, I
realize). There’s also the problem that, with any pianist, there’s
early versus late, live versus studio, the good days and the bad.
-david gable
JohnGavin
This group of pianists represent to me a certain austerity of
approach. Serkin is very much included in that group. They seem to
feel that Beethoven is structure above everything and that beauty of
sound has very little to do with the realization of his music. This
is not to negate their insights completely, but perhaps times are
trending away from this extreme.
david...@aol.com
> The thing that's "insidious" about the "eat-your-whatever" argument is
> that it's almost always used by those who want you to like what they
> like.
I think it's more complicated than that. The enthusiast is generally
the person who knows the most about the object of his or her
enthusiasm, and you don’t inevitably know better. I could never
understand Stravinsky’s and Boulez’s enthusiasm for Debussy, but their
enthusiasm was enough evidence for me to keep listening, and I
eventually came to share their enthusiasm. Knowing a good deal about
Boulez and Stravinsky, I recognized their authority rather than
accepting my own snap judgment.
Originally, this expression was aimed at the taste of children, which
is why the unpleasant food is always spinach or Brussels sprouts
rather than candy: children have an easier time acquiring a taste for
candy than for late Beethoven. It’s a question of instant
gratification versus knowledge or pleasure acquired with somewhat more
difficulty and discipline.
A friend of mine teaches French horn to kids. A few years ago when
one of her students failed to show up for his third lesson, my friend
phoned the student’s mother, who hadn’t extended the courtesy of a
phone call to cancel, which was already symptomatic. When asked what
had become of Little Johnny, Little Johnny’s mother explained that
Little Johnny wasn’t having “fun” and wouldn’t be taking any more
lessons. Needless to say, you can’t possibly know whether it’s fun to
play the French horn after two lessons, but Little Johnny’s mother was
too stupid to appreciate that there are higher forms of pleasure than
instant gratification. The late 18th-century amateur who bought a
piano sonata or piece of chamber music for home consumption had worked
hard to acquire sufficient skill on an instrument to play it
competently at home, thereby deriving pleasure from the skill.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
> This group of pianists represent to me a certain austerity of
> approach. Serkin is very much included in that group.
> They seem to
> feel that Beethoven is structure above everything and that beauty of
> sound has very little to do with the realization of his music.
I think the opposition of "sound" and "structure" is a false
dichotomy. I do recognize that Serkin's playing is characterized by a
certain austerity, but I wouldn't say that his expressivity is
decreased thereby or that his austerity makes his performances any
less moving. In the case of the slow movement from Schubert’s B flat
sonata it actively depends on it.
As for at least some of the other pianists on Allan's list, their
playing is worlds removed from Serkin's -- their approach to phrasing
and rubato -- although Brendel’s playing, at least, bears a
superficial resemblance to Serkin’s.
-david gable
td
> Has anyone heard of George Pludermacher??? I see he has a complete beethoven
> set as well as Schubert - I never heard of him Wagner fan
Of course you haven't.
Mired in Wagner, i guess.
TD
td
Serkin provided me with some of the greatest moments in my concert
going life. Hammerklaviers to die for.
Unfortunately, Sony/CBS never captured his sound, which was already
not pretty, in all its richness.
So, we only have memories where he is concerned.
TD
td
Hmmmmm.
Lewis in person, as opposed to his recordings, is a much more
viscerally exciting pianist. Much more in the line of Brendel and
Serkin, neither of whom put much emphasis on pretty sounds in
Beethoven.
Indeed, pretty sounds are fairly irrelevant to that music. Kempff
never sounded pretty in concert either, but on record he has left a
stereo cycle which gives one that impression.
Frankly, I don't think any modern pianist aims to imitate Cherkassky
in this music.
Do you?
Do you want that anyway?
TD
alla...@mac.com
> On Feb 4, 3:54 pm, allan...@mac.com wrote:
>
> > Five pianists especially associated with the interpretation of
> > Beethoven are my five least favorite "major" pianists: Backhaus,
> > Kempff, Arrau, Serkin, and Brendel.
>
> I hope, at least, that you don’t think all of these guys are cut from
> the same cloth.
Not exactly. Kempff, for instance, is a more "gentle" pianist than the
others. But I agree with John Gavin that there is a certain Teutonic
austerity to their general approach.
> Because -- while I can live without most of them -- I
> love Rudolf Serkin’s playing (a rare enthusiasm on this newsgroup, I
> realize).
Horowitz valued Serkin's playing, too, even though most of us would
think of them as opposites.
> There’s also the problem that, with any pianist, there’s
> early versus late, live versus studio, the good days and the bad.
I already acknowledged that I don't automatically dislike everything
they do. I was speaking in terms of averages.
Keep in mind, too, that all I'm saying is that these are my five least
favorite pianists from a very selective and rather short list of what
are conventionally considered to be "major" pianists.
In general, I prefer to discuss my enthusiasms rather than my
dislikes, and an examination of my posts will certainly bear that out.
Given the direction of this conversation, I allowed myself a statement
about dislikes--but I hope it won't derail us for long. There are more
interesting things to discuss.
Allan
alla...@mac.com
> This group of pianists represent to me a certain austerity of
> approach. Serkin is very much included in that group. They seem to
> feel that Beethoven is structure above everything and that beauty of
> sound has very little to do with the realization of his music. This
> is not to negate their insights completely, but perhaps times are
> trending away from this extreme.
I agree with all this.
Allan
alla...@mac.com
> I think the opposition of "sound" and "structure" is a false
> dichotomy.
Why?
Allan
JohnGavin
> On Feb 4, 4:47 pm, allan...@mac.com wrote:
>
> > The thing that's "insidious" about the "eat-your-whatever" argument is
> > that it's almost always used by those who want you to like what they
> > like.
>
> I think it's more complicated than that. The enthusiast is generally
> the person who knows the most about the object of his or her
> enthusiasm, and you don’t inevitably know better.
I would agree with that (except possibly the last phrase), however
it's also a matter of relativity and culture. As this thread
demonstrates, there are enthusiasts for many of the myriad approaches
to the Beethoven Piano Sonatas. I'm an enthusiast for much of Gilels'
Beethoven partly because he uncannily evokes orchestral sonorities
(along with his other virtues) which seem so much an inherent aspect
of Beethoven's piano writing. If one cherishes this aspect then
Serkin in comparison sounds wirey and austere in sound (even if one
acknowledges his other virtues as an interpreter). It's not always a
question of "knowing better", but rather of deciding which heirarchy
of qualities bring the music home for you.
I could never
> understand Stravinsky’s and Boulez’s enthusiasm for Debussy, but their
> enthusiasm was enough evidence for me to keep listening, and I
> eventually came to share their enthusiasm. Knowing a good deal about
> Boulez and Stravinsky, I recognized their authority rather than
> accepting my own snap judgment.
Well, snap judgments are always suspect - "snap" implies that it's
made quickly, without tolerance or introspection. But the above
formula "I admire A and A admires B, and I don't admire B, therefore
I'm short sighted about B" is tricky, don't you think?
Boulez once admitted to having a very soft spot for Ravel, while
Stravinsky called him a "Swiss watch maker". What do you do in that
case? I say beware of trying to see through other's eyes. By doing
so you give up part of your own intuitive insight. Could it be that
you have enthusiasms that Boulez doesn't share?
Simon Roberts
Paige Turner says...
>When Serkin was on, his Beethoven had tremendous
>force. His Hammerklavier and Diabellis, for example, or the
>Pathetique. And he was the best performer of the Fantasia Op. 77,
>swept the field.
You prefer it to Edwin Fischer's?
Simon
Simon Roberts
>
>Has anyone heard of George Pludermacher??? I see he has a complete beethoven
>set as well as Schubert - I never heard of him Wagner fan
Complete Mozart sonatas, too. If I remember right, his set of Beethoven sonatas
won lots of awards in France, though based on the couple of discs I've heard I'm
not quite sure why - the playing sounded rather anonymous to me. His earlier
recording of the Diabelli Vars/op 111 and the cello sonatas, both on Lyrinx, are
both first rate.
Simon
alla...@mac.com
> I think it's more complicated than that. The enthusiast is generally
> the person who knows the most about the object of his or her
> enthusiasm, and you don’t inevitably know better.
Here, we are all mostly committed enthusiasts of one variety or
another. But very few people have equal enthusiasms for--just to stick
with the last half of the 20th c.--John Cage, Pierre Boulez, and John
Coltrane. Different experiences, assumptions, and commitments lead one
to lean one way or another.
I reject the idea that one set of aesthetic criteria are necessarily
"right" or "better" than another. We are, after all, in the realm of
creativity and taste--not that of morals or scientific facts. I also
think that the most effective form of persuasion is not telling others
that they should attend to something because it's good for them (thus
implying you know better what's right for them than they do) but
rather explaining what sort of enjoyment and enlightenment is to be
had by directing one's attention toward this particular aesthetic
object. Then the horse either drinks or it doesn't.
Allan
JohnGavin
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Pretty" and "Beethoven" rarely go together. By beauty of sound
(perhaps not the best description), I mean a full bodied, sustained
orchestral sonority, not prettiness. And when Beethoven calls for an
abrupt sf, then the sound should be appropriatly startling or
percussive, not softened or prittified.
But I think you already know what I mean.
Matthew B. Tepper
news:e43fee2c-bc77-4328...@p23g2000prp.googlegroups.com:
> Horowitz valued Serkin's playing, too, even though most of us would
> think of them as opposites.
Also Serkin's opinion of concert halls, which is why Horowitz's return to the
San Francisco Bay Area was at the Paramount Theater in Oakland.
--
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
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
HvT
"Simon Roberts" <sd...@comcast.net> schreef in bericht
news:gmf0m...@drn.newsguy.com...
I like his recording of the Debussy preludes and etudes.
Henk
alla...@mac.com
> I don't like Backhaus and I have already written about Arrau (very hit
> and miss), but the others are fine, and Kempff (Polydors especially,
> and the mono set from the fifties) and Serkin (a few sonatas) are much
> more than fine. When Serkin was on, his Beethoven had tremendous
> force. His Hammerklavier and Diabellis, for example, or the
> Pathetique. And he was the best performer of the Fantasia Op. 77,
> swept the field.
(Had missed this post earlier.)
It's okay if we disagree, Mario!
And, honest, I'm not striving to be dkII. I don't attach the same
importance to my dislikes. And even though these five would be on both
our lists, I do very much value a number of pianists among his betes
noires: Gieseking, Solomon, Lipatti, Moravec, etc. And, yes, sound is
part of the key.
I admit to a certain grudging admiration for Serkin. The man tried so
damn hard. You cannot impugn his integrity. But the result was as
skeletal as the man himself.
As for Op. 77, I'm 100% with Simon: Edwin Fischer.
Allan
td
> On Feb 5, 6:39 am, "david7ga...@aol.com" <david7ga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 4, 3:54 pm, allan...@mac.com wrote:
>
> > > Five pianists especially associated with the interpretation of
> > > Beethoven are my five least favorite "major" pianists: Backhaus,
> > > Kempff, Arrau, Serkin, and Brendel.
>
> > I hope, at least, that you don’t think all of these guys are cut from
> > the same cloth.
>
> Not exactly. Kempff, for instance, is a more "gentle" pianist than the
> others. But I agree with John Gavin that there is a certain Teutonic
> austerity to their general approach.
Utter nonsense!
Did you ever heard Kempff perform in concert?
Did you ever hear him play Beethoven in concert?
Well, l did.
I heard him play all 32 sonatas in 1970 at the Salle Pleyel in Paris.
There were no "gentle" moments in his playing other than those
indicated in Beethoven's music. His Hammerklavier sonata was simply
overwhelming in its impact.
Your comments are the kind one hears from those who either never heard
this pianist in person or who have only ever heard his DG stereo
cycle, where the impact of his playing is falsified. Compare his Decca
Brahms recordings to those made by DG a decade later. DG's early
stereo microphoning did not capture the impact of Kempff's playing on
record. Their earlier monaural recording techniques did, as did
Decca's.
TD
td
This has been a common observation one could make of Gable's musical
taste. It is largely defined by his enthusiasm for Pierre Boulez and
his clique. No need to indicate the members of this clique; they are
well known to members of this forum.
He is, of course, entitled to "follow his leader", a veritable Pied
Piper of the musical avant-garde.
TD