Richter/Leinsdorf Brahms 2nd
Dave Cook
I still have the "Papillon" release and suspect the remasterings have to be
an improvement over this. But all I can find is a Gold Seal issue and this
issue at MDT:
74321846052 BEETHOVEN Piano Sonatas Nos.12 22 & 23 Piano Concerto No.1
BRAHMS Concerto No.2 Sviatoslav Richter Boston SO/ Munch Chicago SO/
Leinsdorf RCA 2cds
Which I suspect is one of these French twofers with the garish covers.
Dave Cook
Sol L. Siegel
>Wasn't this ever issued in the Living Stereo series, or is this
>OOP already?
No Living Stereo: they issued the Cliburn/Reiner early on and
they don't (didn't?) tend to duplicate repertory in this line.
>I still have the "Papillon" release and suspect the remasterings
>have to be an improvement over this. But all I can find is a Gold
>Seal issue and this issue at MDT:
>
> 74321846052 BEETHOVEN Piano Sonatas Nos.12 22 & 23
>Piano Concerto No.1
>BRAHMS Concerto No.2 Sviatoslav Richter Boston SO/ Munch
>Chicago SO/ Leinsdorf RCA 2cds
I believe these are the only two issues since. (The Gold Seal's
been in the catalog nearly ten years now!) Since I still have the
Papillon myself I can't vouch for the transfers.
-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.)
Steve Emerson
vod...@aol.comdammspam (Sol L. Siegel) wrote:
> Dave Cook dav...@mindspring.com writes:
>
> >Wasn't this ever issued in the Living Stereo series, or is this
> >OOP already?
>
> No Living Stereo: they issued the Cliburn/Reiner early on and
> they don't (didn't?) tend to duplicate repertory in this line.
>
> >I still have the "Papillon" release and suspect the remasterings
> >have to be an improvement over this. But all I can find is a Gold
> >Seal issue and this issue at MDT:
> >
> > 74321846052 BEETHOVEN Piano Sonatas Nos.12 22 & 23
> >Piano Concerto No.1
> >BRAHMS Concerto No.2 Sviatoslav Richter Boston SO/ Munch
> >Chicago SO/ Leinsdorf RCA 2cds
>
> I believe these are the only two issues since. (The Gold Seal's
> been in the catalog nearly ten years now!) Since I still have the
> Papillon myself I can't vouch for the transfers.
The Gold Seal transfer sounds OK to me. I don't know that there's any reason
to go to the extra trouble of getting the two-fer; nor do I know if that
transfer is different.
SE.
Aki Anton
--
Dave Cook <dav...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:slrnapf0ag...@localhost.localdomain...
David Wake
> Correct. Richter himself felt that the Brahms recording was abysmal.
>
He preferred his recording with Maazel and I agree with him.
David
Curtis Croulet
Why do you prefer the Maazel? I've never heard it. I really want to know.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33° 27' 59"N, 117° 05' 53"W
David Wake
> > He preferred his recording with Maazel and I agree with him.
>
> Why do you prefer the Maazel? I've never heard it. I really want to know.
The Maazel recording has a wonderful feeling of breadth and epic
grandeur, reminiscent of Gilels/Jochum although more intense. Richter
has always sounded uncomfortable to me in the Leinsdorf recording.
It is (or, at least, was) available in Europe on EMI Red Line at
midprice, coupled with the wonderful Schumann Sonata #2.
David
Curtis Croulet
has always seemed to be a rather pretentious repertory piece, perhaps
intentionally so. I've always liked Richer/Leinsdorf, as they knock some of
the stuffing out of it, and Gilels/Reiner, because (contrarily) they take it
as it is, without apology, giving maximum play to the pretentiousness and
bombast.
Johannes Roehl
>
> I haven't heard the Gilels/Jochum, either. To me the Brahms Second Concerto
> has always seemed to be a rather pretentious repertory piece, perhaps
> intentionally so. I've always liked Richer/Leinsdorf, as they knock some of
> the stuffing out of it, and Gilels/Reiner, because (contrarily) they take it
> as it is, without apology, giving maximum play to the pretentiousness and
> bombast.
If Brahms #2 (IMO a relatively introvert piece, especially
for a concerto) is pretentious or bombastic, what do you
call any concerto by Rachmaninoff, Liszt or Tchaikovsky?
Johannes
Sol L. Siegel
>Curtis Croulet schrieb:
>>I haven't heard the Gilels/Jochum, either. To me the Brahms Second
>>Concerto has always seemed to be a rather pretentious repertory piece,
>>perhaps intentionally so.
>If Brahms #2 (IMO a relatively introvert piece, especially
>for a concerto) is pretentious or bombastic, what do you
>call any concerto by Rachmaninoff, Liszt or Tchaikovsky?
FWIW, according to Slonimsky's "Lexicon of Musical Invective",
Tchaikovsky flat-out hated Brahms's music.
Curtis Croulet
> for a concerto) is pretentious or bombastic, what do you
> call any concerto by Rachmaninoff, Liszt or Tchaikovsky?
"Introverted" is probably the last adjective I'd apply to Brahms 2. Am I
now going to be asked to pass judgement on every other Romantic concerto?
Rach: pretentious and bombastic, no. Liszt: bombastic, but not pretentious,
because there's no "pretending" to say anything significant. Tchaik 1: a
piece that has eluded me. Other than the "big tune," what is it people like
about this? It's been a *long* time since I've heard Tchaik 2 & 3, so I
can't really comment about them.
David Wake
> "Introverted" is probably the last adjective I'd apply to Brahms 2. Am I
> now going to be asked to pass judgement on every other Romantic concerto?
> Rach: pretentious and bombastic, no. Liszt: bombastic, but not pretentious,
> because there's no "pretending" to say anything significant. Tchaik 1: a
> piece that has eluded me. Other than the "big tune," what is it people like
> about this?
Listen to Horowitz/Toscanini.
David
Curtis Croulet
I have both (1941 & 1943). Back to Richter/Leinsdorf in
Brahms 2. At the time of its release on LP in 1960, David
Hall in HiFi/Stereo Review reviewed it with a performance in
Philadelphia in his mind's ear. IIRC, Hall's main complaint
was that the recording misrepresented Richter's tone, giving
it a more heroic aspect than was heard at the concert, where
dynamics rarely rose above mezzoforte. I don't recall any
complaints about tempo or other interpretive matters.
Having just now listened to Richter/Leinsdorf, I find that
they play the piece with considerable lyricism and whimsy,
bringing the first two movements into balance with the last
two by reducing the pretentiousness which so frequently
bothers me. If the recording with Maazel does this even
better, then I would be eager to hear it.
David Wake
I would guess that you would not like Richter/Maazel, given your
comments above.
David
Johannes Roehl
>
> > If Brahms #2 (IMO a relatively introvert piece, especially
> > for a concerto) is pretentious or bombastic, what do you
> > call any concerto by Rachmaninoff, Liszt or Tchaikovsky?
>
> "Introverted" is probably the last adjective I'd apply to Brahms 2. Am I
> now going to be asked to pass judgement on every other Romantic concerto?
Of course not and no-one can bring you to like Brahms 2nd if
for some reason you don't. But I would never apply
'pretentious' to anything by Brahms as he probably was one
of the most self-critical composers ever who destroyed huge
amounts of his works, because he was not satisfied with ist.
Sure it was the longest and one of the most difficult
concertos in its day, but it is not really flashy at all,
not only compared to Liszt, but also to Beethoven 5 oder the
Mendelssohn concertos. What does it (or the composer)
pretend that is not actually there?
> Rach: pretentious and bombastic, no. Liszt: bombastic, but not pretentious,
> because there's no "pretending" to say anything significant. Tchaik 1: a
> piece that has eluded me. Other than the "big tune," what is it people like
> about this? It's been a *long* time since I've heard Tchaik 2 & 3, so I
> can't really comment about them.
I do not like either of Rachmaninoff's, Liszt's or
Tchaikovsky's too much (about once a year they are good
fun), but I think either Brahms' is in an entirely different
class (not only as far as concertos are concerned).
Johannes
Brian Park
news:anc17h$jdp$1...@newsreaderm1.core.theplanet.net...
> Correct. Richter himself felt that the Brahms recording was abysmal.
>
This is one recording where I just wonder how it would have turned out if he
recorded it with Reiner as originally planned before Reiner went down for a
while with heart problems. Not that Leinsdorf was bad or anything but I
always felt that Reiner was a superb conductor for Brahms' concertos--at
least as far as his Chicago recordings with Heifetz, Rubinstein, Gilels, and
Cliburn indicate. I suspect a Brahms 2nd with Richter would have been
pretty damned good too.
Brian Park
Brian Park
news:20021002132036...@mb-mq.aol.com...
>
> FWIW, according to Slonimsky's "Lexicon of Musical Invective",
> Tchaikovsky flat-out hated Brahms's music.
>
> -Sol Siegel, Philadelphia, PA
> --------------------
Well, he was wrong then. :-) Seriously, if I had to choose one between one
composer's music over another's, it would be Brahms, hands down. How do
others feel?
Brian Park
Samir Golescu
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Brian Park wrote:
> > FWIW, according to Slonimsky's "Lexicon of Musical Invective",
> > Tchaikovsky flat-out hated Brahms's music.
>
> Well, he was wrong then. :-)
Of course he was wrong. However, remember the myriads of forms of abuse
German musicologists, critics, musicians, and even "simple listeners" have
brought upon Tchaikovsky's music. Furtwangler's rather high opinion of
Tchaikovsky and *very* high opinion of Chopin were exception, not rule
in the German kingdom...
> Seriously, if I had to choose one between one
> composer's music over another's, it would be Brahms, hands down. How do
> others feel?
I'd resent that as an almost as painful choice as the "Sophie's choice",
as far as both composers are among my dearest. . . and I think they share
being two of, if not "the" most soulful composers I know, structural,
eth[n]ical, and linguistic differences apart.
regards,
SG
Ramon Khalona
> I haven't heard the Gilels/Jochum, either. To me the Brahms Second Concerto
> has always seemed to be a rather pretentious repertory piece, perhaps
> intentionally so. I've always liked Richer/Leinsdorf, as they knock some of
> the stuffing out of it, and Gilels/Reiner, because (contrarily) they take it
> as it is, without apology, giving maximum play to the pretentiousness and
> bombast.
Richter/Leinsdorf is still my favorite Brahms 2nd. I have read
Richter's opinion about it and I think it must be seen in the light of
how he became
in his later years. This is a man who became obsessed with playing
all the repeats and paid careful attention to tempo indications, etc.
In other words,
he became more 'faithful' to the composer's intentions as indicated in
the score (Richter even stopped playing from memory and always used a
score in
his later years). All of this, in my view, made his playing less
spontaneous and exciting than it was in his earlier years. It is true
that he could be more searching in old age, and we have plenty of
examples of that.
I cannot agree that the Maazel recording is superior to that with
Leinsdorf.
As Curtis says, the latter has an excitement and carefree attitude
that the EMI recording lacks. The EMI recording is, in my view, a
fine mainstream reading (the comparison with Gilels/Jochum is apt).
The RCA recording is extraordinary.
As for the work's pretentious nature, I would agree perhaps about the
1st two movements, but the slow movements is one of the most poignant
and intimate Brahms ever wrote, and the last movement has a
gracefulness and playful quality that is uncommon in Brahms.
Just my two cents.
Ramon Khalona
Michael Lehrman
"Brian Park" <bkp...@iwic.net> wrote in message
news:anfus...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Aki Anton <alex.lea...@bradford.gov.uk> wrote in message
> news:anc17h$jdp$1...@newsreaderm1.core.theplanet.net...
> > Correct. Richter himself felt that the Brahms recording was abysmal.
> >
>
> pretty damned good too.
>
But it turned out even better with Leinsdorf :-)
ML
J. Teske
recording came out ca 1960. I was 18 at the time. A couple years
later when in college I heard the Gilels/Reiner...a couple years older
and like the Richter, early stereo. I remember at the time my musician
friends...particularly the pianists, thought the Gilels was better. I
thought it sounded better too and it also had Starker on the solo
cello.
Now at age 18 or so, my musical tastes were not particularly well
deveoped and I did not play piano at the time [I do now.] I think I
was also something like last chair second violin in the college
orchestra as well [I have gone on to better things] so I suspect the
subtleties of the performance would have escaped me. I do have a CD
of the Richter. I have not seen the Gilels in years (it was my
roomie's copy) and wonder if it has ever been released on CD. Given 40
years perspective and a lot of experience as an orchestral musician I
wonder how I would react to a renewed hearing of the two performances
today.
Jon Teske, violinist
JRsnfld
I heard the Maazel recording many years ago and found I liked the spirit and
vigor of the Leinsdorf version better. But then, am I the only person in the
world who actually likes the live Mravinsky/Richter version even more? Anyone
else prefer at least one of the live performances to the Leinsdorf?
--Jeff
JRsnfld
I have both (1941 & 1943). >>
Aren't there at least three of these on disc (1939 Lucerne, 1948 NBC, two from
1940...)? I can't prefer the 1939 or 1948 to Richter/Leinsdorf or
Gilels/Reiner, but they are interesting, with some unusual outbursts of
unbridled pianistic pleasure, countered by taut, naturally flowing orchestral
playing--two different styles vying for supremacy.
--Jeff
David Wake
Horowitz/Toscanini was actually mentioned in the context of
Tchaikovsky's FIrst Conerto.
David
Edward A. Cowan
> I have not seen the Gilels in years (it was my
> roomie's copy) and wonder if it has ever been released on CD.
The Gilels/Reiner Brahms Pf. con. no.2 was issued on CD on BMG/RCA
60536-2-RV, coupled with Brahms's Haydn Variations by Ormandy and the
Phila. Orch.
--E.A.C.
Curtis Croulet
Haven't heard it. Would like to.
JRsnfld
Eric Nagamine
the piece, never having played it prior to the CSO recording. Reiner was
not pleased, but thought highly enough of Gilels to do the recording in
shorter takes. It's great to have with Janos Starker on Cello in the 3rd
movement.
--
-----------
Aloha and Mahalo,
Eric Nagamine
Eric Nagamine
I've always enjoyed the Leinsdorf/Richter/CSO recording, though on LP it
was hard to find a noise free pressing for some reason. If Richter was
not happy with the recording, perhaps it was because Leinsdorf was a
last minute replacement for Reiner who had a heart attack.
Cellists will note that one Robert La Marchina was the soloist in the
3rd movement. IIRC, La Marchina was one of the youngest members of the
NBCSO, played in the MET orchestra before Chicago & was a touring
conductor for the MET prior to becoming music director here Honolulu in
the late 60's & 70's. Someone once told me that he heard La Marchina
play duets with Jacqueline du Pre and she was totally outplayed by him.
Edward A. Cowan
> Cellists will note that one Robert La Marchina was the soloist in the
> 3rd movement. IIRC, La Marchina was one of the youngest members of the
> NBCSO, played in the MET orchestra before Chicago & was a touring
> conductor for the MET prior to becoming music director here Honolulu in
> the late 60's & 70's.
The _Tables_ volume of the 1985 Met _Annals_, p.64, shows that Robert La
Marchina was a very busy man at the MET during three seasons (1964/65
through 1966/67), conducting eight operas and one ballet (Bartók's _The
Miraculous Mandarin_) for a total of 247 performances.
--E.A.C.
IMCA
> > Mravinsky/Richter
>
> Haven't heard it. Would like to.
I have that disc. Seems that Mravinsky was not all that fond of
working with soloists, and Richter was among the few he would. It's a
truly virtuosic reading, no holds barred. To be sure, one gets the
impression of a kind of on-going competition between conductor and
pianist, leaving the impression that each of them, for all their
magisterial command, is eager to reach some imaginary finish line.
Richter takes even more risks than usual, dropping whole fistfuls of
notes, while the usually Appolonian Mravinsky hurls thunderbolts
this time round, making the Leningrad Phil every bit the equal to
Richter's competitive, ever so virtuosic edge virtuosic. This is
hardly Brahms for those who prefer a more staid or stately or let's
say it -- Germanic approach. Rather than proffering a model of
contemplative decorum where the dialogic and aesthetic dimensions of
chamber music would form the center of some Alpine ideal, it is
instead nervous, angry, impatient, boisterous, even diabolical. To
that extent, then, it's a reading that reflects a great deal more
about the performers idiosyncratic personalities than it does about
the inner workings or subtleties of the score, but in spite of that it
is a bloody exciting performance and totally unlike Richter's
marvelous, but far tamer coupling with the Chicago. The recorded
sound, though, is pretty shrill, and could stand some major
re-mastering, were some clever producer willing to track down the
original tape and get to work. Recommended.
John Bell Young
Simon Roberts
"JRsnfld" <jrs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021003171232...@mb-fy.aol.com...
I love the Chicago studio performance, but I do prefer the live Czech
performance from a decade earlier conducted by Kondrashin - it's at
least as spontaneous-sounding and extrovert as the later performance
conducted by Mravinsky but technically better played; I find all the
wrong notes in the latter a bit much. (It's also probably easier to
find, given the demise of Russian Disc.)
Simon
Curtis Croulet
the 1960 American tour. There's a lot of wrong/dropped
notes there too.