|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.67.16.10
To me, the "pianist of the century" (no flames please) and my desert island choice.
Except for the RCA Brahms and Bach, never had a decent engineer, even tho he lived into the stereo era.
The new Supraphon |SACDs are at least listenable, but I bought the Superaphon non-SACD of Beethoven 1+3: he modifies his touch to sound like a fortepiano, Ancerl's accompaniment is sprightly (if not HIP), a delightful performance, yet ruined by horrendous tape hiss that opens the disc.
?comments.
Follow Ups:
JM- rumour is that Szell wanted recordings for epic to sound good on his home system: AR3's under the sofa
???????
But even so, the Epic recordings still sound way better (to me) than the later Columbia/CBS efforts. I still scratch my head at how badly engineered some of those CBS recordings are, with all their distortion and bad multi-microphoning.
like his *Pictures at an Exhibition* Sofia live recording. (US Columbia release )
or his Schumann's Piano Concerto with Gauk/USSR State Radio.
I think I have the same Supraphon CD you have?
This is less than ideal digital remaster. I have the feeling that the original recording wasn't that good to begin with and later someone who's not qualified tried to *fix it* but failed.
A recessed midrange and hollow ringy piano sound. A bit like out of phase on PC1. Audience noise throuhout sometimes coming off closer than the piano and orchestra! The bright digital edge with void of naturalness. Lean dry overall balance with lacking low frequency content. etc..
Performance wise, whist I am not completely convinced of Richter's Beethoven work, I love his live recording generally than his studio recording. This one is no exception. There are some misplaying but love the energy and particularly the 3rd concerto, more creative and livelier than most. ( Even more so than his DG studio recording with Sanderling ) He's pounding on keys ( again a few misses ) but having a bit of fun.
I haven't gone through all of his Praga SACDs but just for Chopin SACD, the sound quality varies by the track.
Some of the best sounding discs/LPs I have are the later ORFEO and JVC Japan digital recording of his live concerts. They must figured out good inconspicuous places for microphones.
Some of the Philips recordings are good, too. I love his later Schubert sonatas.
I agree with your assessment of Richter as "pianist of the [twentieth] century". Did you mean Brahms and Beethoven, rather than Brahms and Bach? I think it's funny that Richter himself perversely made disparaging comments about his RCA recordings and even preferred his later, lugubrious Brahms 2 (with Maazel) to the wonderfully lithe RCA one (with Leinsdorf/CSO). You mention that Richter modifies his touch to sound like a fortepiano in the performances with Ancerl - Could that be just an artifact of the way he was recorded? (I haven't heard those particular performances, but the RCA No. 1 with Munch/BSO is wonderful, especially in its XRCD incarnation, despite the slight audibility of a hum for part of that recording. For that matter, the DG No. 3 with Sanderling/VSO is not badly engineered for its time either - this is all just IMHO.)
Also IMHO, the quality of the engineering is, in general, one of the most important elements in our impression of any recorded performance. As you say (and for reasons explained by John below), this put Richter at a disadvantage relative to other pianists of his time. Even so, as I think you're also suggesting, his non-RCA recordings, sourced from EMI, Melodiya, DG, BBC Legends, Supraphon, Praga and others, are usually good enough to allow for his often extraordinary, revelatory performances to emerge.
Also the Phillips set is well engineered and some onederful examples of Richters art later on in is career. Also the Listz concertos on phillips are well engineered
Alan
Richter insisted that he not be able to see the microphones, even if he were looking for them.
In other words, not just that there could be no microphones in his line of sight as he played. No microphones visible as he walked up to the piano, or faced the audience and bowed.
Makes it a little difficult.
They hid the mics in the chandelier.
How do you think that sounded?
JM
I would assume that Richter would have accepted the necessary presence of microphones at a studio or empty-hall recording session.
Perhaps he had stage fright and the thought that a slip might be immortalized via tape made the dread a self-fulfilling prophecy, but if he couldn't see any microphones, he could fool himself into thinking that his live playing was not being recorded.
JM
"Richter insisted that he not be able to see the microphones, even if he were looking for them."
That would explain it.....
It's almost like bad Toscanini recordings.... The actual performance and what's on the recording can be perceived as two totally different things.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: