Which Ashkenazy Rach 2+3? Previn or Fistoulari/Kondrashin
gperkins151
Ashy/Fistoulari also played in full?
2. Which recording do you prefer? I've heard that early Ashy is
preferable, though the Fistoulari/Kondrashin disc is only about 10
years earlier than the Previn.
I am considering the 6CD set with Previn, though I already own the
discs containing the two piano works and the disc with the preludes.
Thanks!
Wiener Sänger
Fistoulari / Kondrashin, definitely. The Previn is the only one with
the big cadenza in the Rach 3.
R
tomdeacon
gperkins151 wrote:
> 1. I know the Ashy/Previn Rach 3 is played without the cuts, is the
> Ashy/Fistoulari also played in full?
Frankly, I prefer the recording of No. 3 which Ashkenazy made with
Ormandy for RCA Victor.
TD
Gerard
Re concerto #2 I prefer the recording with Kondrashin.
The age of this recording is nothing to worry about.
Alex
"gperkins151" <gperk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153739844.0...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> 1. I know the Ashy/Previn Rach 3 is played without the cuts, is the
> Ashy/Fistoulari also played in full?
>
> 2. Which recording do you prefer? I've heard that early Ashy is
> preferable, though the Fistoulari/Kondrashin disc is only about 10
> years earlier than the Previn.
I think the earlier Third is cut (I have the CD but haven't heard it in
ages). For #2 I've never really bought into the supposed 'uniquely
beautiful version of the slow movement' reputation about the Previn, and the
earlier one is very good. Also available on a Japanese SACD if you can play
it.
Alex
"tomdeacon" <tomde...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1153741781....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Never heard that, but doesn't it have the reputation of the ugliest piano
sound on record?
Gerard
I thought is was the reputation of the ugliest orchestra sound on record.
But both is possible.
tomdeacon
I don't recall it being "ugly". But then again I happen to enjoy the
sound of Weissenberg's piano in the RCA Victor recording with the CSO
and Pretre.
Rachmaninoff doesn't really need "pretty", you know, just audible and
in tune.
TD
tomdeacon
And neither is true.
TD
Gerard
It was not about truth, but about reputation.
tomdeacon
Oh, that's good.
Reputations are often undeserved.
This recording is Ashkenazy's last word on Rach 3. It includes the long
cadenza and benefits from Ormandy's highly canny accompaniment. I
wonder if there was ever any better conductor for a concerto. He seems
to get into the head of the pianist and even anticipate his every move,
with his musicians doing his bidding perfectly. The winds here are
particularly outstanding. No pianist could dream of a better
accompanist than Eugene Ormandy and his PO.
The piano IS very forward, and it is likely an American Steinway - hey,
SR himself adored these instrumeents - with all that this entails. Very
clear, bright, almost metallic treble. Slightly angry sounding middle
range and bass. But Ashkenazy's playing is far from unsophisticated
even with this instrument highlighted as it is in the recording. And he
gets some real tenderness in sections of the slow movement.
Frankly, I prefer a quicker tempo to the first movement, always have,
always will, but if you have to play this in a slower tempo you really
have only to choose between Ashkenazy and Cliburn.
As this recording, which was coupled with the Paganini Rhapsody with
Pennario and Fiedler, now seems to have been deleted - it was a
Papillon collection item from Germany published in 1987 - it is
probably in the dustbin for at least a while. I don't seem to find it
even listed as deleted on www.amazon.com. Perhaps it is still available
in Europe?
TD
Richard Schultz
: I am considering the 6CD set with Previn, though I already own the
: discs containing the two piano works and the disc with the preludes.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"That's *genius*!"
"Really? I thought it was Rachmaninov."
gperkins151
Richard Schultz wrote:
> : I am considering the 6CD set with Previn, though I already own the
> : discs containing the two piano works and the disc with the preludes.
>
> Is there some particular reason that it must be Ashkenazy?
I already own, the composer's recordings omfthe complete set, along
with Hough's and Rudy's. I also have a number of single discs like
Argerich's 3, Richter's 2 and Entremont's 1,4 and Paganini. I LOVE
Rachmaninov!
I am really growing to love Ashkenazy and want to have at least one CD
of his Rach concerto's. I'd prefer it to be a complete set, but if the
Fistoulari/Kondrashin or Ormandy recording is significantly superior,
then I'll probably start there.
Alex Panda
> As this recording, which was coupled with the Paganini Rhapsody with
> Pennario and Fiedler, now seems to have been deleted - it was a
> Papillon collection item from Germany published in 1987 - it is
> probably in the dustbin for at least a while. I don't seem to find it
> even listed as deleted on www.amazon.com. Perhaps it is still available
> in Europe?
I think this has been MIA generally from the catalogues for a long time, as
I recall from a Rach 3 survey in IPQ a few years ago.
Vaneyes
gperkins151 wrote:
>
> Which recording do you prefer?
Ashky/Previn for 2. For the others: 1 - Janis; 3 - Martha; 4 - ABM.
Regards
Steven de Mena
> As this recording, which was coupled with the Paganini Rhapsody with
> Pennario and Fiedler, now seems to have been deleted - it was a
> Papillon collection item from Germany published in 1987 - it is
> probably in the dustbin for at least a while. I don't seem to find it
> even listed as deleted on www.amazon.com. Perhaps it is still available
> in Europe?
>
> TD
Here it is:
Steve
chzh...@gmail.com
This recording is also available in a title "Rachmaninoff in
Hollywood".
CZ
gperkins151
Could you say a bit about why you prefer the Fistoulari/Kondrashin,
please?
gperkins151
Thanks Tom,
Have you heard the others that I mentioned?
gperkins151
IPQ?
gperkins151
Gerard wrote:
> Re concerto #2 I prefer the recording with Kondrashin.
> The age of this recording is nothing to worry about.
Thanks Gerard, what about the Kondrashin makes it your preferred
version?
jrs...@aol.com
> This recording is Ashkenazy's last word on Rach 3. It includes the long
> cadenza and benefits from Ormandy's highly canny accompaniment.
And Ashkenazy/Haitink? That is not a later last word from Ashkenazy?
Perhaps someone can explain how bad Ashkenazy/Haitink is, that the
original poster didn't even consider this one of the Ashkenazy options?
I've never heard it...I'm just wondering why it is the Rodney
Dangerfield of Ashkenazy Rach cycles.
--Jeff
Gerard
Partly because it was my imprint on this concerto.
But mainly because of the atmosphere that Kondrashin creates; an atmosphere
Ashkenazy fits in wonderfully.
I've heard a lot of other recordings since, but this one is, for me, still the
one that tells what Rachmaninov is about.
gperkins151
jrsn...@aol.com wrote:
> original poster didn't even consider this one of the Ashkenazy options?
> I've never heard it...I'm just wondering why it is the Rodney
> Dangerfield of Ashkenazy Rach cycles.
I probably should check it out then, I love Rodney Dangerfield!
I didn't consider it cause I am trying to narrow the focus here. I am
very interested in the Previn set because it has been well recommmended
and is complete. But before purchasing it I thought I would get the
opinions of those here.
How about this: could fans of Ashy assemble a set from whichever
sources they wish?
This way, I can determine if its worth it for me to by 3 or 4 single
CD's or simply to get the Previn set on Amazon for the cost of one.
Tony Overington
Not by any means. That would go to the Russian Disc of Sofronitsky
playing Prokofiev's sonata 7 (and various smaller pieces). Must hear.
jrs...@aol.com
At least one Amazon set is offering the Haitink set for under $12.
Personally, I'd go for the Previn set, because it is uncut, because
Previn/LSO pre-1980 is a great combination in this music. But I'd also
soon buy the Ashkenazy/Ormandy for similar reasons and then pick up
anything with Kondrashin, anyway, because he's so great, and then buy
the Fistoulari because early Ashkenazy has got to be less mannered than
late Ashkenazy, in which his little right-before-the-end-of-the-phrase,
deeply-meditative-yet-predictably-reflexive-or-overly-calculated
hesitations kills his musicianship for me. It often kills his
conducting, too. It's sad, because back in the 70s I thought very
highly of Ashkenazy. So, I'd steer away from the Haitink until my
overwhelming curiousity about hearing the Concertgebouworkest in
digital sound in this music finally got the better of me.
And then I'd break down and buy some live pirated stuff with Ashkenazy
and I'd be done.
Loving Rachmaninoff is so simple, isn't it?
--Jeff
Vaneyes
Vaneyes
UPSOR? Too many, but I'll add Klien Mozart (VOX).
Regards
Paul Goldstein
says...
My favorite set is the Eresko/Provatorov, which features the most inflected and
Romantic playing of any such set I've heard.
Paul Ilechko
> Richard Schultz wrote:
>> : I am considering the 6CD set with Previn, though I already own the
>> : discs containing the two piano works and the disc with the preludes.
>>
>> Is there some particular reason that it must be Ashkenazy?
>
> I already own, the composer's recordings omfthe complete set, along
> with Hough's and Rudy's. I also have a number of single discs like
> Argerich's 3, Richter's 2 and Entremont's 1,4 and Paganini. I LOVE
> Rachmaninov!
You do? And you still have Argerich's 3 ?
graham
"Vaneyes" <van...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1153776978.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Graham
gperkins151
Paul Ilechko wrote:
> gperkins151 wrote:
> > I already own, the composer's recordings omfthe complete set, along
> > with Hough's and Rudy's. I also have a number of single discs like
> > Argerich's 3, Richter's 2 and Entremont's 1,4 and Paganini. I LOVE
> > Rachmaninov!
>
> You do? And you still have Argerich's 3 ?
I haven't heard it in awhile, though I am not sure what you mean?
gperkins151
Paul Goldstein wrote:
> My favorite set is the Eresko/Provatorov, which features the most inflected and
> Romantic playing of any such set I've heard.
Thanks, what does inflected mean when people use it with respect to
paino playing?
Vaneyes
Which Schiff Janacek recording?
Regards
gperkins151
jrs...@aol.com wrote:
> Personally, I'd go for the Previn set, because it is uncut, because
> Previn/LSO pre-1980 is a great combination in this music. But I'd also
> soon buy the Ashkenazy/Ormandy for similar reasons and then pick up
> anything with Kondrashin, anyway, because he's so great, and then buy
> the Fistoulari because early Ashkenazy has got to be less mannered than
> late Ashkenazy, in which his little right-before-the-end-of-the-phrase,
> deeply-meditative-yet-predictably-reflexive-or-overly-calculated
> hesitations kills his musicianship for me. It often kills his
> conducting, too. It's sad, because back in the 70s I thought very
> highly of Ashkenazy. So, I'd steer away from the Haitink until my
> overwhelming curiousity about hearing the Concertgebouworkest in
> digital sound in this music finally got the better of me.
>
> And then I'd break down and buy some live pirated stuff with Ashkenazy
> and I'd be done.
>
> Loving Rachmaninoff is so simple, isn't it?
>
> --Jeff
Nope. Tonight after comparing Ashy/Previn in 2 and Ashy/Kondrashin in 2
at a local used shop, I confidently bought the Kondrashin/Fistoulari
disc with 2+3. The main reason I chose this one is because the piano
seemed to get drowned out in the opening of the Previn version.
Boy I am I glad I got this CD, it is poetic and most enjoyable! I am
sure to get thee previn set at some point, but for now, I shall
thoroughly enjoy this disc. Incredible! Thanks to all who helped!
Vaneyes
I have. Twice today.
....though I am not sure what you mean?
I'm not either, but I suspect it's not supportive. heh heh
Regards
graham
Graham
gperkins151
Vaneyes wrote:
> gperkins151 wrote:
> > I haven't heard it in awhile....
>
> I have. Twice today.
Once should be enough, no?
> ....though I am not sure what you mean?
>
> I'm not either, but I suspect it's not supportive. heh heh
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
tomdeacon
Of course.
TD
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:1153772261.919679.240040
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> This recording is also available in a title "Rachmaninoff in Hollywood".
Well, I've seen his house in Beverly Hills, and it's not a terribly long
drive from Hollywood.
--
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
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
Matthew B. Tepper
Rachmaninoff and wife playing the "Polka Italienne."
Mark Melson
>
>gperkins151 wrote:
>>
>> Which recording do you prefer?
>
>Ashky/Previn for 2. For the others: 1 - Janis; 3 - Martha; 4 - ABM.
>
>Regards
Which Janis? RCA or Mercury?
Paul Goldstein
says...
I mean lots of rubato and dynamic contrasts to play up the dramatic potential of
the music.
Curtis Croulet
> sound on record?
I have the LP, and the answer is yes.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W
Vaneyes
You mean Paul Ilechko?
Regards
Vaneyes
Mercury, cw Prokofiev 3.
Regards
Richard Schultz
: Richard Schultz wrote:
:> : I am considering the 6CD set with Previn, though I already own the
:> : discs containing the two piano works and the disc with the preludes.
:> Is there some particular reason that it must be Ashkenazy?
: I already own, the composer's recordings omfthe complete set, along
: with Hough's and Rudy's. I also have a number of single discs like
: Argerich's 3, Richter's 2 and Entremont's 1,4 and Paganini. I LOVE
: Rachmaninov!
Frankly, I'd get the Rubinstein/Ormandy, Rubinstein/Reiner, and
Moiseiwitsch recordings of #2 before I'd bother with Ashkenazy/Previn.
Heck, I got rid of the Ashkenazy/Previn #2 and kept the Entremont/Goehr.
: I am really growing to love Ashkenazy and want to have at least one CD
: of his Rach concerto's. I'd prefer it to be a complete set, but if the
: Fistoulari/Kondrashin or Ormandy recording is significantly superior,
: then I'll probably start there.
I am not a big fan of Ashkenazy, and am not familiar with his other recordings,
but I can say that relative to some of the other ones in the catalog, I found
the set with Previn to be rather bland and passionless. Then again, I
think that Richter's #2 is far too wayward for me to be able to include it
in the Rachmaninov Hall of Fame that everyone else does, so YMMV.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"That's *genius*!"
"Really? I thought it was Rachmaninov."
Alex
<jrs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1153774637.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > This recording is Ashkenazy's last word on Rach 3. It includes the long
> > cadenza and benefits from Ormandy's highly canny accompaniment.
>
> And Ashkenazy/Haitink? That is not a later last word from Ashkenazy?
>
> Perhaps someone can explain how bad Ashkenazy/Haitink is, that the
> original poster didn't even consider this one of the Ashkenazy options?
> I've never heard it...I'm just wondering why it is the Rodney
> Dangerfield of Ashkenazy Rach cycles.
The #2 from that cycle isn't good, but the coupled #4 is superb, my
favourite for that work, better than Michalengeli on EMI. Now on a Decca
Original CD. BBC Radio 3's Building a Library IIRC agreed when surveying
Rach 4, prompting a few apopleptic listeners to accuse the station of
heresy.
Alex
Very good I agree (I have the SACD though prefer Graffman/Szell's 'recent'
CD issue for the Prok 3), but for more modern CDs for the Rach 1 I'd also
recommend Pletnev, Zimerman and Andsnes. Avoid Hough.
gperkins151
Yes, sorry.
tomdeacon
An example?
TD
tomdeacon
Curtis Croulet wrote:
> > Never heard that, but doesn't it have the reputation of the ugliest piano
> > sound on record?
>
> I have the LP, and the answer is yes.
That is no proof at all. Merely an opinion.
TD
Curtis Croulet
>
> That is no proof at all. Merely an opinion.
As is yours that the piano sound is OK.
Curtis Croulet
will post the catalogue number of a Japanese release. In any case, having
just now played the LP, I can confirm that the piano sound on the original
RCA release is tinny and clangy. It leaves one wondering what the artists
heard when they approved it, and how could an experienced producer like Jay
David Saks approve it?
jrs...@aol.com
Curtis Croulet wrote:
> Has the Ashkenazy/Ormandy recording ever appeared on CD? No doubt someone
> will post the catalogue number of a Japanese release. In any case, having
> just now played the LP, I can confirm that the piano sound on the original
> RCA release is tinny and clangy. It leaves one wondering what the artists
> heard when they approved it, and how could an experienced producer like Jay
> David Saks approve it?
On an RCA disc titled "Rachmaninoff in Hollywood"--various Amazon
z-shops have it cheap. It was probably re-released when the "Shine"
craze was in full bloom.
--Jeff
tomdeacon
Curtis Croulet wrote:
> >> I have the LP, and the answer is yes.
> >
> > That is no proof at all. Merely an opinion.
>
> As is yours that the piano sound is OK.
Which only means that neither of us has anything but opinions, which
are basically worthless, except to ourselves.
Fair enough?
TD
tomdeacon
jrs...@aol.com wrote:
> Curtis Croulet wrote:
> > Has the Ashkenazy/Ormandy recording ever appeared on CD? No doubt someone
> > will post the catalogue number of a Japanese release. In any case, having
> > just now played the LP, I can confirm that the piano sound on the original
> > RCA release is tinny and clangy.
No, you can't confirm it. You think it is.
>> It leaves one wondering what the artists heard when they approved it, and how could an experienced producer like Jay David Saks approve it?
Sorry, but I would be more likely to question your own ears.
> On an RCA disc titled "Rachmaninoff in Hollywood"--various Amazon
> z-shops have it cheap. It was probably re-released when the "Shine"
> craze was in full bloom.
According to the details on that listing, it is NOT complete.
It did appear complete, together with the Paganini Rhapsody with
Pennario and Fiedler on RCA Victor GD 86524, in the Papillon
Collection. My copy is a German issue.
TD
Curtis Croulet
gperkins151
tomdeacon wrote:
> > > Frankly, I prefer the recording of No. 3 which Ashkenazy made with
> > > Ormandy for RCA Victor.
> > Have you heard the others that I mentioned?
> Of course.
> TD
Then what are your impressions of the Previn set?
I have been just about convinced to get it.
Henk van Tuijl
"gperkins151" <gperk...@yahoo.com>
schreef in bericht
news:1153852983....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You mean the Decca set with the complete
works for piano? The pieces for solo
piano are often good and sometimes even
very good. The works for piano and
orchestra are a disappointment - in
particular the second piano concerto.
Henk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mijn Postvak In wordt beschermd door
SPAMfighter
154 spam-mails zijn er tot op heden
geblokkeerd.
Download de gratis SPAMfighter vandaag
nog!
gperkins151
Henk van Tuijl wrote:
> You mean the Decca set with the complete
> works for piano? The pieces for solo
> piano are often good and sometimes even
> very good. The works for piano and
> orchestra are a disappointment - in
> particular the second piano concerto.
No, I mean the recently remastered Trio set on Decca. It includes the
Four Concertos and the Paganini Rhapsody, Sonata 2 and Corelli
variations. They come from the set you are referring to. Why are the
piano and orchestra works a disappointment?
Henk van Tuijl
The Corelli is a terrific
interpretation! The works for piano and
orchestra are just another set, two
professional musicians doing another
gig. Bland performances - Ashkenazy in
the days of his going nowhere (to borrow
Herman's phrase).
Vaneyes
Yes, I've been off Hough for quite a while. The only thing that
remains, is his partnering (w. Isserlis) on R. Strauss Cello Sonata
(RCA).
Regards
Alan Cooper
<hvt...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>The Corelli is a terrific
>interpretation! The works for piano and
>orchestra are just another set, two
>professional musicians doing another
>gig. Bland performances - Ashkenazy in
>the days of his going nowhere (to borrow
>Herman's phrase).
Yes, the Corelli Variations are probably the best thing in the set,
but imo, that performance is inferior to the young Ashkenazy's EMI
rendition, which has been reissued by Testament. The Feux Follets and
Prokofiev 7th Sonata on the Testament CD are worth having, too.
AC
gperkins151
> Personally, I'd go for the Previn set, because it is uncut, because
> Previn/LSO pre-1980 is a great combination in this music.
> --Jeff
Thus far, you are the only person to come to Previn/Ashy's defense. I
find this odd because, as I mentioned this is a VERY well reviewed set
so I thought it was a no-brainer. Are the other Previn/Ashy lovers
holding back fo fear of inviting pages of criticsm?
tomdeacon
I would be loath to convince you to get any set.
I do like the Paganini Rhapsody from that set. Ashkenazy plays the
spots off the wall in that music.
But as to the other concerti, well, there are simply too many better or
more interesting performances of each of the concerti.
TD
tomdeacon
Henk van Tuijl wrote:
> "gperkins151" <gperk...@yahoo.com>
> schreef in bericht
> news:1153854752.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Henk van Tuijl wrote:
> >> You mean the Decca set with the
> >> complete
> >> works for piano? The pieces for solo
> >> piano are often good and sometimes
> >> even
> >> very good. The works for piano and
> >> orchestra are a disappointment - in
> >> particular the second piano concerto.
> >
> > No, I mean the recently remastered
> > Trio set on Decca. It includes the
> > Four Concertos and the Paganini
> > Rhapsody, Sonata 2 and Corelli
> > variations. They come from the set you
> > are referring to. Why are the
> > piano and orchestra works a
> > disappointment?
>
> The Corelli is a terrific interpretation!
You think so? You should try the version he recorded for EMI in the
1950s. Now THAT is terrific.
With Ashkenazy, the earlier the better.
TD
tomdeacon
Alan Cooper wrote:
> Yes, the Corelli Variations are probably the best thing in the set,
> but imo, that performance is inferior to the young Ashkenazy's EMI
> rendition, which has been reissued by Testament. The Feux Follets and
> Prokofiev 7th Sonata on the Testament CD are worth having, too.
I love your penchant for understatement!
The Feux Follets are among the top three or four recordings of the
music ever put onto tape.
The others are Richter in Sofia, Joyce Hatto, and Nojima on Reference.
This is one opinion stated by Mr. Ditsky or Distler or whatever his
name is that I agree with. He probably read it somewhere.
TD
tomdeacon
Surely you jest.
Some of us positively court such pages of criticism. They are a badge
of honour in this place.
TD
Vaneyes
gperkins151 wrote:> > Previn/LSO pre-1980 is a great combination in this music. But I'd also
> > soon buy the Ashkenazy/Ormandy for similar reasons and then pick up
> > anything with Kondrashin, anyway, because he's so great, and then buy
> > the Fistoulari because early Ashkenazy has got to be less mannered than
> > late Ashkenazy, in which his little right-before-the-end-of-the-phrase,
> > deeply-meditative-yet-predictably-reflexive-or-overly-calculated
> > hesitations kills his musicianship for me. It often kills his
> > conducting, too. It's sad, because back in the 70s I thought very
> > highly of Ashkenazy. So, I'd steer away from the Haitink until my
> > overwhelming curiousity about hearing the Concertgebouworkest in
> > digital sound in this music finally got the better of me.
> >
> > And then I'd break down and buy some live pirated stuff with Ashkenazy
> > and I'd be done.
> >
> > Loving Rachmaninoff is so simple, isn't it?
> >
> > --Jeff
>
> Nope. Tonight after comparing Ashy/Previn in 2 and Ashy/Kondrashin in 2
> at a local used shop, I confidently bought the Kondrashin/Fistoulari
> disc with 2+3. The main reason I chose this one is because the piano
> seemed to get drowned out in the opening of the Previn version.
>
> Boy I am I glad I got this CD, it is poetic and most enjoyable! I am
> sure to get thee previn set at some point, but for now, I shall
> thoroughly enjoy this disc. Incredible! Thanks to all who helped!
Kenneth Wilkinson would've enjoyed your "drowned" remark. heh heh
Regards
Vaneyes
I think you've just missed the posts.
Regards
Raymond Hall
news:1153865213....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
I've never held back in defence of much of Previn's early work, and some of
his later, but in all honesty I have never found Ashkenazy very inspiring in
anything as a pianist. One reviewer said in the past, (I forget who), that
after several attempts at the Rach 3 pc, it was still a work that continued
to delude Askenazy. He may have been right, but it is such a long time since
I listened to any Rach, I might as well shut up.
I'd be looking elsewhere frankly, especially wrt the pianist. Ashkenazy is a
pretty good conductor though, and his Rach symphonies with the Concertgebouw
are very good, as are his Isle of the Dead, and Symphonic Dances.
Ray H
Taree, NSW
gperkins151
Vaneyes wrote:
> Kenneth Wilkinson would've enjoyed your "drowned" remark. heh heh
>
> Regards
????
Paul Ilechko
> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>> gperkins151 wrote:
>>> I already own, the composer's recordings omfthe complete set, along
>>> with Hough's and Rudy's. I also have a number of single discs like
>>> Argerich's 3, Richter's 2 and Entremont's 1,4 and Paganini. I LOVE
>>> Rachmaninov!
>> You do? And you still have Argerich's 3 ?
>
> I haven't heard it in awhile, though I am not sure what you mean?
>
I think it's one of the worst recordings I've ever heard of anything. YMMV.
Henk van Tuijl
"tomdeacon" <tomde...@yahoo.ca>
schreef in bericht
news:1153866633.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I agree. However, this Corelli is a
terrific interpretation in its own
right, as are some of the other
interpretations on the Decca set.
Henk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mijn Postvak In wordt beschermd door
SPAMfighter
157 spam-mails zijn er tot op heden
Gerard
I suppose Wilkinson is a kind of Willem O'Duys.
Gerard
I suppose it is well reviewed in English (British) reviews, because an English
orchestra (LSO) is involved.
There's no need for defense of Previn and/or Ashkenazy as performers of
Rachmaninov's music; they both do very well, as conductors also.
But their combination (in this recording) is rather tame, compared to Askenazy's
recording with Kondrashin
jrs...@aol.com
Don't tell me that you, like me, have started abbreviating him as
"Rach" to avoid "ff/v" controversies? :-)
For me, Previn + LSO = Rachmaninoff.
Of course, [(Ormandy or Stokowski) + Philadelphia] x [the composer] =
Rachmaninoff^2
And (Sanderling + Leningrad)/Rachmaninoff = 1
--Jeff
wille...@hotmail.com
jrs...@aol.com wrote:
> > This recording is Ashkenazy's last word on Rach 3. It includes the long
> > cadenza and benefits from Ormandy's highly canny accompaniment.
>
> And Ashkenazy/Haitink? That is not a later last word from Ashkenazy?
>
> Perhaps someone can explain how bad Ashkenazy/Haitink is, that the
> original poster didn't even consider this one of the Ashkenazy options?
> I've never heard it...I'm just wondering why it is the Rodney
> Dangerfield of Ashkenazy Rach cycles.
>
> --Jeff
Bad? I think Ashkenazy was still pretty much on top of it when he did
his cycle with Haitink... and besides, the discs are spectacularly well
recorded (no wonder with the fabulous acoustics of the Concertgebouw!).
The orchestral playing is also very beautiful. You may not like
Ashkenazy's phrasing in the 80's, but to call it "bad" ?? (How would
you rate David Helfgott by comparison if Ashkenazy is "bad"?
non-existent? :-)
As far as the interpretations go, Ashkenazy makes a good case for the
4rth Concerto, a piece that never really worked for me (apart from
Michelangeli's legendary recording). If an artist makes a piece work
that is not regarded as a masterpiece, it means that he has done
something special. At least for me, I always feel the need to jump up
after the last chord of the Ashkenazy/Haitink performance of no 4 and
shout out loudly: "Bravo!"
If I were to choose a cycle of Rachmaninov concertos by Ashkenazy, it
would be the cycle with Haitink, rather than with Previn. The earlier
set is good too, but not as beautifully recorded. Having said this, I
will always keep a soft spot for the Rach 2 with Kondrashin (whom I
still find one of the best and somewhat underrated conductors, just the
way he shapes the lower strings in the beginning of the 1st movement is
hauntingly beautiful) and Ashkenazy was a class of his own in the 60's.
The number 3 is also a very good performance. That disc is definitely a
bargain!
W.
wille...@hotmail.com
jrs...@aol.com wrote:
> gperkins151 wrote:
> > jrsn...@aol.com wrote:
>
> And then I'd break down and buy some live pirated stuff with Ashkenazy
> and I'd be done.
>
>
> --Jeff
Is there much pirated Ashkenazy stuff you can buy??
W.
gperkins151
wille...@hotmail.com wrote:
> If I were to choose a cycle of Rachmaninov concertos by Ashkenazy, it
> would be the cycle with Haitink, rather than with Previn.
No paganini with Haitink, right?
The earlier
> set is good too, but not as beautifully recorded. Having said this, I
> will always keep a soft spot for the Rach 2 with Kondrashin (whom I
> still find one of the best and somewhat underrated conductors, just the
> way he shapes the lower strings in the beginning of the 1st movement is
> hauntingly beautiful) and Ashkenazy was a class of his own in the 60's.
> The number 3 is also a very good performance. That disc is definitely a
> bargain!
>
> W.
Agreed.