|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.126.5.126
I thought she was getting too fat at one point, but I have to say that Lise's looking pretty good on this latest album cover. I'm glad (and relieved!) to be proven wrong! A pity about the playing however (if Distler is right!). . .
Follow Ups:
OK, Chris, I gotta ask. They take a beautiful young woman who happens to be a talented pianist, have her record Kinderszenen, and put out the CD with a closeup of her beautiful face on the cover. A critic (a particularly bad one, imho) then cleverly compares her performance to those of: Wilhelm Kempff; Ivan Moravec; Radu Lupu; Annie Fischer; Artur Schnabel; and Vladimir Horowitz. And to his surprise he is forced to conclude that hers suffers in comparison.
We might be forced to conclude that this young musician, though clearly a hot blonde, is not yet one of the 20 greatest pianists of all time. Can you recover from the shock and disappointment?
She should record the Chopin Waltz op. 64 no. 2 and they could put her in the mixed martial arts cage with Yuja Wang.
One thing where I guess I'm different from many other listeners is that I don't always require that the performances I listen to be among the top 20 of all time (even if we could get to a consensus as to which performances those might be!). ;-)
Actually, I haven't kept up with Lise's latest releases, but she might be another pianist (like Hélène "Wolf Lady" Grimaud) whose first recording might be her high-water mark as a musical artist.
Hi, Chris!
Two things. First Grimaud's work on Denon was back when she was a rebel. She had an edge. Now she is mainstream and has lost that edge. She plays safely. Second, I always enjoy hearing new performances of standard repertoire by new performers just for the variety. I love Ravel piano music, but I try to hear different performances instead of my "favorite(s)" over-and-over again. It's also interesting to see how these new soloists develop. Also, I hate to admit it, but I do enjoy really good sound quality when I listen to music. Finding the music in a Schnabel recording is sometimes too much work.
Another two things. I enjoyed Lise's latest release much more than Classics Today did. It is a two-edged sword for the new performers. If you record the standards, it puts you in a lot of competition, but you'll probably sell more discs. If you record off-the-beaten-path stuff, you might get better reviews because of less competition, but you might sell fewer discs and lose your contract to record more. Second, I've always been more positive about ASO than you, but I I'll have to really work to get past her latest marketing scheme.
The real question is, why is she recording Kinderscenen and the Abegg Variations? Maybe that is what Mr. Distler is implicitly asking, and I should give him more credit.
Better to record some interesting contemporary music. Each New Young Sensation can't be the next Schnabel or Horowitz.
That's why the babes with their Bach cello suites, Beethoven piano sonatas, Rach 3, Prok 2, Sibelius vc, blah blah, get boring. Sorry, but Amphissa has a point. Those who are reasonably legit and can keep their figures (Mutter, Grimaud) will still be around past the age of 40 and can be ogled then. ;)
Now you've gotten me interested in just how bad or good Lise's new Scumann recording actually is, and I need to hear it now. For me, it wouldn't take much to get beyond Schnabel (!), although, having said that, I was nosing around Spotify yesterday and came across yet another incarnation of Schnabel's Beethoven Sonatas (all 32). I listened to parts of the Hammerklavier, and I must say I've never heard the SQ of that particular recording sound as good as it did on that Spotify incarnation. Now here's the annoying part: it had one of those Spotify "fake album covers", so I don't know what label it was on, who did the transfers, etc.
IMHO, many of the "big" names of the past are overrated, so I'm happy the babes keep their recordings of the standard rep coming off the assembly line. There's nothing musically magic to me about either age 40 or pre-1950! ;-)
"IMHO, many of the "big" names of the past are overrated, so I'm happy the babes keep their recordings of the standard rep coming off the assembly line. There's nothing musically magic to me about either age 40 or pre-1950! ;-)"
And there in lies the rub. Nostalgia and childhood hero worship leaves quite an imprint on some human psyche.
them? By generations of critics that compared them to decades of performers?
Against this, we have "audiophiles" that place the sound of their systems far above the quality of the interpretation, some specifically stating that only very well-recorded efforts can elevate a performer's rendition to elite.
At some point, only a hermit that never has heard the legends and whose teachers also are woefully ignorant of same, can produce an original interpretation. The weight is just too great.
That doesn't mean great artists don't come along, now, or make good music. But they necessarily are a pastiche of former giants (if they're good). "The technique of a Horowitz, the sensibility of Wild, the passion of Gulda!"
In some ways, it's like the pop situation: not only will there not be another Beatles, there cannot be. They defined the genre; they created the benchmarks. It has always been so, in art.
Greatness comes from originality and that has been obviated some time ago.
Assuming great composers suddenly appear, great performances then might be possible...
Edits: 08/27/14
"Overrated:" by whom? By the listeners that flocked for decades to their concerts? By their peers that praised them? By generations of critics that compared them to decades of performers?"
By the fans who look through rose colored glasses at the past and have trouble dealing with the fact that there is advancement in classical musicianship.
"Against this, we have "audiophiles" that place the sound of their systems far above the quality of the interpretation, some specifically stating that only very well-recorded efforts can elevate a performer's rendition to elite."
Given that classical music was largely far better recorded 50-60 years ago than today this would support Chris's assertion. I sure don't look to today's classical recordings for any audiophile gems.
"At some point, only a hermit that never has heard the legends and whose teachers also are woefully ignorant of same, can produce an original interpretation. The weight is just too great."
Complete nonsense. Every interpretation is original. No two are the same.
"That doesn't mean great artists don't come along, now, or make good music. But they necessarily are a pastiche of former giants (if they're good). "The technique of a Horowitz, the sensibility of Wild, the passion of Gulda!""
Again more nonsense.
"In some ways, it's like the pop situation: not only will there not be another Beatles, there cannot be. They defined the genre; they created the benchmarks. It has always been so, in art.
Greatness comes from originality and that has been obviated some time ago.
Assuming great composers suddenly appear, great performances then might be possible..."
No it's not like the pop situation since pop artists largely create new music. Greatness does not come from originality either. Greta music is open to a near infinite interpretations and there is no one right one. Musicians are playing music better than ever before and there is plenty of room for new and great recordings of classical music.
There are times when I read your posts and wonder if you actually listen to classical music.
right on through Rachmaninoff? "Fact" that musicianship has improved? Overall, perhaps, but hardly among the greats--- and that's what we're talking about. I can't think of one single art form about which your statement would be accurate.
"Every interpretation is original." Yes, and so is every piece of written music. Technically true, but balderdash in meaning.
Your take on pop music makes my argument stronger: the music is "original," though it's ridiculously inferior to the music of the past.
In interpreting music that has been played for over a hundred years, it is quite impossible to create anything truly original. We'll just have to differ in our opinions, there, obviously.
You may be misinterpreting my comments, though.
I don't mean I don't enjoy listening to new interpretations, to new artists. I do. But I haven't heard any that I'D place among those I've listened to for decades.
You may wish to consider my position isn't unusual.
Why some here find an opinion is a personal threat and feel the need to become emotional over something as personal as a musical opinion I find puzzling.
I wonder if you've ever looked at the sales of "classic" artists compared to those of "new" ones.
. . . your rhetorical speculation, "I wonder if you've ever looked at the sales of "classic" artists compared to those of "new" ones", makes me wonder if you really want to go down that road. So let's see, what are the best selling classical records of all time? Cliburn's Tchaikovsky Concerto, Pavarotti's Greatest Hits, Dorati's 1812 Overture? All very worthy no doubt, but I'm not sure what point you're making. Are you really arguing in favor of vox populi, vox dei?
"right on through Rachmaninoff? "Fact" that musicianship has improved?"
We can't really compare anyone who was not recorded. But yes, since classical music has been recorded musicianship has improved.
"Overall, perhaps, but hardly among the greats--- and that's what we're talking about."
Even among the greats.
"I can't think of one single art form about which your statement would be accurate."
We are talking about classical music specifically. Doesn't really matter what other art forms you can or can not think of.
""Every interpretation is original." Yes, and so is every piece of written music. Technically true, but balderdash in meaning."
No. It is simply true. Both in fact and in meaning. It is just plain true period.
"Your take on pop music makes my argument stronger: the music is "original," though it's ridiculously inferior to the music of the past."
My take on pop music has no relevance on the state of classical music. I simply pointed out the flaw in your analogy.
"In interpreting music that has been played for over a hundred years, it is quite impossible to create anything truly original. We'll just have to differ in our opinions, there, obviously."
This isn't even a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.
"You may be misinterpreting my comments, though."
How can I be misrepresenting them? I am quoting your posts in their entirety.
"I don't mean I don't enjoy listening to new interpretations, to new artists. I do. But I haven't heard any that I'D place among those I've listened to for decades."
That's an opinion you get to have. But quite honestly I am still some what skeptical that you are actually doing much critical listening to classical music at all much less making meaningful comparisons between historical recordings and contemporary.
"You may wish to consider my position isn't unusual."
I haven't taken a survey but to the best of my memory you are the first person to claim that current interpretations are unoriginal.
"Why some here find an opinion is a personal threat and feel the need to become emotional over something as personal as a musical opinion I find puzzling."
I don't find your opinions to be a personal threat. I just find them to be absurd. I am certainly not getting emotional over your opinions. Well, I take that back. They are good for laughs. That is an emotion is it not?
"I wonder if you've ever looked at the sales of "classic" artists compared to those of "new" ones."
I wonder if you have ever looked at the sales of "classic artists" compared to Miley Cyrus.
we have "audiophiles" that place the sound of their systems far above the quality of the interpretation, some specifically stating that only very well-recorded efforts can elevate a performer's rendition to elite
Whoah! I plead innocent to this, if that's what you're trying to imply. I WILL say however, that the SQ of older recordings does present an incomplete picture of the range and nuance that go into a great interpretation. I want to hear what the composer and the interpreter put into the music, and if that's obscured by bad SQ, I'm not a happy camper.
Greatness comes from originality
Well. . . sometimes. Greatness is also the result of mastering the essentials of one's art at the highest level too. To exemplify the point, there are some of Telemann's Cantatas that can easily be mistaken for Bach's. I don't think Bach's greatness lies in his originality - it was more the magnificent summing up of the Baroque era at a very high level of accomplishment (which, nevertheless, didn't prevent some other composers, like Telemann, from sometimes attaining similar heights). Today, we're kind of hung up on originality, partially because of the Romantic notions of the nineteenth century. Even so, I believe there is just a much originality in musical performance today as there was at any other time - it just operates at a more subtle level and thus requires more comprehension on the part of the audience (which it doesn't always get!).
some of the great performances weren't perfectly preserved. I still enjoy Toscanini and Furtwangler interpretations, immensely. Heck, I have ancient recordings of Ponselle and Caruso that I couldn't possibly appreciate more if they had been recorded during the golden era of vinyl.
I'll leave you to argue Telemann similarity to Bach somehow diminished J. S.'s originality.
Polyphony. Harmony. The complexities of counterpoint. The incredible range of musical forms… I can't think of a lot of derivative Bach music. It sounds original to my ears---- for its period.
Without originality, all one has left is technique. Originality hardly is a new measure of greatness.
In fact, the list of great composers is a clustering of great innovators, of ground-breakers (yes, Chris, there are some exceptions…).
Lastly, I bow to your finer sense of listening: I find no modern interpreters that I listen to in amazement. Perhaps it's the distance from the composers' lives, from the tradition of teaching that has now grown old. You can find painters in Italy still painting in the rococo style, but hardly anyone would consider them "original" or "great."
Edits: 08/28/14
Jeez, tin! Now I'm going to have to take Scott's approach and go sentence by sentence. One thing you're certainly good for is firing off in all directions at once!
some of the great performances weren't perfectly preserved. I still enjoy Toscanini and Furtwangler interpretations, immensely. Heck, I have ancient recordings of Ponselle and Caruso that I couldn't possibly appreciate more if they had been recorded during the golden era of vinyl.
OK, I'm with you pretty much with you on these statements, although the "golden era of vinyl" is hardly my idea of the ultimate in recorded sound. Whatever.
I'll leave you to argue Telemann similarity to Bach somehow diminished J. S.'s originality.
You don't have to trust me - just check out any music history book and see why he is considered great. It's not because of "originality".
Polyphony. Harmony. The complexities of counterpoint. The incredible range of musical forms? I can't think of a lot of derivative Bach music. It sounds original to my ears---- for its period.
Bach did not invent polyphony, harmony, or countrapuntal complexities. He used the common musical language of the Baroque era. (Speaking of "complexities of counterpoint", did you ever hear of a choral work by Tallis called "Spem in allium"? If you don't know it, you should check it out.) As for "musical forms", I'm at a loss to think of what "musical forms" Bach invented - maybe something like the Musical Offering or the Art of Fugue - even then I'm not sure. He certainly DIDN'T invent the Concerto, the Cantata, the Mass setting, the Suite, the Toccata, the Prelude, the Fugue, the Capriccio, the Fantasy, the Theme and Variations. . . (I'm sure I'm leaving something out).
Without originality, all one has left is technique. Originality hardly is a new measure of greatness. In fact, the list of great composers is a clustering of great innovators, of ground-breakers. . .
A piece of music can be striking and affecting without being original. Originality can be a factor in greatness, as can technique. Again, you're very influenced by the 19th century in these ideas. Some composers can be very original, and yet they're not considered "great". For instance, a number of composers wrote quarter-tone music before Bartok did (and Bartok used quarter-tone writing in only a few works). They were the originalists and the innovators, and he was the copy-cat - why are they not considered greater than Bartok?
Lastly, I bow to your finer sense of listening: I find no modern interpreters that I listen to in amazement. Perhaps it's the distance from the composers' lives, from the tradition of teaching that has now grown old.
I keep forgetting, which modern-day performers do you actually listen to? I think I asked this question before and you gave me some spiel about listening to performances on the radio and not being jazzed about them. So, my question still remains: who exactly are these mediocre performers of the present day?
You can find painters in Italy still painting in the rococo style, but hardly anyone would consider them "original" or "great."
Well, for one thing, maybe they're more interested in the faithfulness of their copies than in the originality of their conceptions. And maybe some of them ARE really great and I just don't know about them. What I DO know however is that I would no doubt prefer some of these "epigones" to some of the originalists who have appeared in painting in my own personal estimation of greatness.
BTW, do you consider Meyerbeer a great composer? There were a couple of decades in the nineteenth century when many listeners considered Meyerbeer to be the greatest composer of them all! ;-)
original. He mastered many forms as no other composer, he wrote in more musical genres (perhaps equaled by Haydn) than any-- at the highest level. Did his music sound like any other of his time? Telemann, Albinoni, Scarlatti, Handel?
Bach defined the baroque. Perhaps this disagreement is a misunderstanding; your view of originality may conflict with mine regarding music. Bach's Passions or the Art of the Fugue don't appear to have any previous works by others anywhere near their complexity or beauty-- in those idioms.
Originality in music isn't a 19th century "thing." Stravinsky, Schubert, Schumann, Strauss, Wagner, etc. All generally considered great, all ground-breakers. And, I didn't say ALL original composers were great. You're making a pretty basic logic mistake. Actually, I didn't claim the inverse, either. But I'd say MOST are.
Re: present day artists.
Most of the performers I've heard live are, relatively, geezers to you. Brendel. Argerich. Thibaudet. Bell. Ax. And others.
I, every day, listen for hours to my local FM station, to the "young" "new" performers. None of them has excited me enough to send me scurrying to my local cd store.
Meyerbeer? Life is short, I may or may not have heard the music; if I did, I wasn't sufficiently awed to seek it out, later.
Carl M. von Weber. Considered Beethoven's equal. Bach: so posthumously forgotten it took how long for Felix to resuscitate him?
History is replete with examples of composers that were overrated AND underrated in their day.
Are you implying that these fellows mean that "greatness" is impossible to determine? Or would you agree that hindsight does have value? The artists I mentioned have had long careers...
I said he (his music) was original. He mastered many forms as no other composer, he wrote in more musical genres (perhaps equaled by Haydn) than any-- at the highest level. Did his music sound like any other of his time? Telemann, Albinoni, Scarlatti, Handel?First of all, part of your question is loaded: it is well recognized that there were national styles in the Baroque era and that music of the Italian Baroque sounds different from the music of the French Baroque. Nevertheless, when Bach wrote his Concerto for Four Keyboards, it sounds A LOT like Vivaldi's Concerto for Four Violins, Op. 3 No. 10. That's because it IS Vivaldi's Concerto for Four Violins, but transposed down a step and with some extra lines of counterpoint added! Also, when you say that Bach "mastered many forms as no other composer", it seems to me as I read it that you're talking about mastery and technique, not originality. Even so, I'm not even sure I'd agree with that assertion as it stands. For instance, Telemann wrote over 20 operas, while Bach wrote. . . ? And, talking about originality, Telemann actually straddled a stylistic rift (kind of in the way that Beethoven did), in the sense that many of his works exemplify the new (original!) galante style (that Bach's sons took up). So in that sense, Telemann is MORE original than Bach! Is he as great a composer as Bach? Overall, no, but he certainly does have his moments!
Bach defined the baroque. Perhaps this disagreement is a misunderstanding; your view of originality may conflict with mine regarding music. Bach's Passions or the Art of the Fugue don't appear to have any previous works by others anywhere near their complexity or beauty-- in those idioms.
Maybe so - complexity and beauty (qualities which, I agree with you, Bach has in abundance) do not by themselves equal originality. But again, there can be very complex music which is not great. For instance Reger wrote a lot of complex music. Is he a great composer? Probably not. OTOH, Chopin wrote some very simple music (e.g., Prelude in A major). Is he a great composer? Probably yes. (BTW, Bach wrote some very simple music too, such as the pieces in the Anna Magdelena Book.)
Originality in music isn't a 19th century "thing." Stravinsky, Schubert, Schumann, Strauss, Wagner, etc. All generally considered great, all ground-breakers.
Sorry - the nineteenth century is when the notion arose, and we're still struggling with it. As I said before, originality can be a factor in greatness, but other factors enter in too - you've named some of them yourself in your post!
And, I didn't say ALL original composers were great. You're making a pretty basic logic mistake. Actually, I didn't claim the inverse, either. But I'd say MOST are.
Yeay! We agree then! I'd only tweak your last sentence by changing "MOST" to "MANY".
Most of the performers I've heard live are, relatively, geezers to you. Brendel. Argerich. Thibaudet. Bell. Ax. And others.
I, every day, listen for hours to my local FM station, to the "young" "new" performers. None of them has excited me enough to send me scurrying to my local cd store.So, let me get this straight: are you saying that the musicians you named do NOT measure up to the great interpreters of the past? That's pretty astounding to me. (BTW, you HAVE a local CD store? If so, good for you and your community!)
Carl M. von Weber. Considered Beethoven's equal. Bach: so posthumously forgotten it took how long for Felix to resuscitate him?
History is replete with examples of composers that were overrated AND underrated in their day.
Are you implying that these fellows mean that "greatness" is impossible to determine? Or would you agree that hindsight does have value? The artists I mentioned have had long careers...And indeed, Carl Maria von Weber was even ADMIRED by Beethoven himself ("Der Freischütz" anyway). As for Mendelssohn's resuscitation of Bach, it's true in a way (for a large scale choral work such as the St. Matthew Passion) for the general public, but, among the "Kenner" (i.e., those in the know), Bach never needed resuscitation. (Check out Czerny's or Schindler's accounts of whose music Beethoven had in his personal library.) Also, I do think it's a bit arrogant for us to think that ideas as to which composers were great are no longer going to change. They're set in stone as of right now? In a way, I guess I am arguing that "greatness" IS impossible (or at least verging on the impossible) to determine. I don't deny that socio-mental inertia has given long life to certain names (more than they probably deserve IMHO), but in the end, I think the most that we can say is that certain composers and performers speak to us individually, without making any grandiose pronouncements and rankings for others. The lazy pursuit of only "the best" is an activity of the monied classes. (Check out the Mercedes commercials if you don't believe me!) More performances than ever before are easily available to us now. I'm certainly not going to dismiss a worthwhile modern rendition of a piece of music just because I've got marmoreal notions of THE GREATNESS of past performances.
Edits: 08/29/14
isn't "original?"
The problem with copying pieces of a discussion and criticizing is that one loses cohesion. You're like the guy who argues about coastline reported lengths, using a smaller and smaller "ruler" as his measure.
Further, I never argued Telemann was more or less original than Bach. You introduced that dimension. Bach didn't compose opera. Wow. Argument over. I won't bother to list what he DID compose.
The list of performers: NO! I think those are excellent performers.
You're point about "greatness" is so vague as to be meaningless.
There are lists of great composers that regularly alter the sequence but very little the actual membership. I doubt one ever would see Schubert or Mendelssohn removed?
Re: early music (an earlier question): I have music by the Tallis Scholars, Alamire, Hilliard Ensemble, and Schola Discantus. Our local library has a very large collection of that period choral music (indeed, of all periods, luckily) so I needn't purchase much.
Yes, this is a cool place for music. Not only the Bach festival, annually, but everyday the resource of at least three good (used) CD stores...
Tin, you are all over the place at this point. Probably a good time to walk away and hope we forget the silly notions you have posted on originality.
Kind of curious though, and perhaps I shouldn't ask. But in one post you are citing Cortot and in another you are citing Ax. Are you grouping together current musicians with musicians from nearly a century ago as "classic Musicians"? Where do you draw your lines? When do you think musicians stopped doing "original" interpretations?
You raised a good point about tradition and interpretation, however, in your other post.
Where do you draw your lines? When do you think musicians stopped doing "original" interpretations? Where do you consider the "classic musicians" came to an end? Perhaps you can give us some examples of recordings that are what you would call "original" interpretations and performances that you would consider "unoriginal" and offer some explanation as to what makes one "original" and the other "unoriginal"
I picture you listening to your FM radio every day, listening for hours, to performers who never manage to excite you. And yet, with stoic determination, you keep repeating the process day after day, nay, year after year - only to see your hopes for diverting enjoyment and artistic exhilaration regularly dashed. Oh well, to each his own!
The problem with copying pieces of a discussion and criticizing is that one loses cohesion
I think you flatter yourself if you think your posts are cohesive. ;-)
I doubt one ever would see Schubert or Mendelssohn removed?
I don't know, tin. I think Mendelssohn is on his way out! ;-)
You're point about "greatness" is so vague as to be meaningless.
Uh. . . OK. So would you like to take a shot at it? Just what is GREATNESS?
That's the main point, isn't it, Chris? There are few things more subjective than tastes in music. Some posters here express opinions that seem, in my personal, subjective opinion, ill-informed, unsophisticated and evidence of profound tone deafness (of course, some others are very well-informed indeed). That's fine. What annoys me is when some of these same posters exclaim "You're absolutely wrong!" to those who would politely disagree with their inane (in my opinion) comments.I detect a trace of condescension in your comment here. I grew up happily glued to a cheap FM radio listening to a great (and long gone) 24 hour classical music station. I don't blame anyone who still has access to a great FM station for spending plenty of time listening to it. What would he miss? The shallow, affected mannerisms (in my opinion) of Lise De La Salle? The attempt to compensate for the lack of profound musical insight with dazzling technical displays of Yuja Wang (in my opinion)? Most of the "babes" you have mentioned here and those I have seen in glossy color ads in Gramophone have been (in my opinion) disappointingly mediocre and undeserving of their hype (in my opinion). Clara Haskil's Kinderszenen in decent 1955 mono sound is so much better than what I heard of Lise (couldn't find her Kinderszenen on youtube, but there was other Schumann) that I am surprised Lise doesn't retire in embarrassment (in my opinion). Most of these babes are empresses with skimpy, tight fitting clothes (in my opinion). And the disappointment is inevitable even when they are good musicians, when at least some of their hype is due to their tits and asses rather than their musicianship (in my opinion). Even Anne Sophie Mutter and Helene Grimaud, though talented, are overrated (in my opinion). And great music in 1955 mono sound is infinitely better than high rez 24/96 sh#t. In my opinion. Pre-1950 sound, as you would say, meh. ;)
Edits: 08/29/14 08/29/14
Depending on where you live, FM can be very good indeed. What was amusing to me was the seeming futility of it all, given tin's daily routine, i.e., continuing to listen to these mediocre modern performers (who are SO mediocre that he forgets most of their names!) for hours every day when they can never hope to measure up to the great names of the past.
BTW, I'm not sure you need to go all the way back to the Clara Haskil 1955 performance of Kinderszenen to get a good recorded performance of that piece. Isn't Moravec good enough? ;-)
And, yes, not EVERY recording by today's babe musicians is the best performance that's ever been recorded. (I believe I've said so when that has been the case, as in Lise's new Schumann album.) I still think we're living in a golden age! ;-)
"Isn't Moravec good enough'
That would be my favorite version among a few worthy contenders.
His Beethoven piano sonatas are also great, I wish he did a complete set.
Another fine Kinderszenen on record is by Annie Fischer, from a 1967 radio broadcast recital. Released after her death, of course. I doubt she would have allowed it out with the inevitable minor imperfections of a live performance.
But Clara Haskil has pride of place for me. Not all of her cd transfers are well done, but the Philips box with Kinderszenen is, everything in that box has good sq, mono and stereo.
Ed. : Wow, was I confused. The Fischer recording is from 1984 and includes Carnival, not Kinderszenen. I'm beginning to confuse recordings, maybe I have enough at this point. Still great Schumann, though.
Edits: 08/29/14
At least you have actually listened to them enough to the point that you can actually name them and tell us what it is you don't like about them. That is the big difference here. I agree with Chris that many of the legendary figures of classical music are over rated. That is an opinion we get to have. Why? Because at the very least it is informed. Informed by actually listening to those artists carefully and thoughtfully and forming individual opinions not just on those artists but their individual efforts on various compositions. While I see a pattern (I suspect Chris sees the same pattern) of classical music fans being highly influenced by reputation. Reputations that get better with death and with age and with certain geographical origins and other non-musical factors and a counter pattern of dismissal towards current artists, younger artists, better looking women artists, young Asian artists etc etc etc. And those stereotypes are pretty easy to sniff out going both ways.
Where Tin gets into trouble is when he paints these stereotypes with an even more broad and stereotyping brush. Only the old guard had passion and originality? That is plainly absurd. It is absurd to say any world class musician lacks passion. Period. You don't get where they are without intense passion. Now it is fair to say one doesn't hear the passion in one particular artist or another but, again, it is absurd to divide artists by the old and new guard. Seriously, could Tin possibly actually be listening to the likes of Ivo Pogorelich, Evgeny Kissen or even Lang Lang and say they lack originality? IMO this is evidence of repeating age old tired stereotypes without even giving any careful listen to the artists in question.
I can't speak for Chris but *that* certainly is where my condensation comes from. It's not just that Tin is wrong it's that he is clearly ill informed and just parroting tired stereotypes.
It would be soooooo much fun to put so many of these opinions to the test under blind conditions with SQ being tweaked so as to not be a dead give away. I'd love to see how the legends stack up against the new crop of musicians with bias taken out of the equation.
Well, actually, I've done some of those tests. The results spoke for themselves. And I am quite confident that even in those blind comparisons some folks were cheating.
those performances, though I prefer when the programmer plays those performers I favor. Entertainment, if you will, vs a transcendent experience.
Which performances do you consider mere entertainment and which do you consider transcendent and what is it that makes them that way?
Now you are just changing the meaning of the word originality.
d
nt
"from the tradition of teaching that has now grown old."
Please if you will, compare and contrast the "old tradition" of teaching classical musicians to the new methodologies.
tradition, of the human, personal passing along of a tradition from one teacher to one pupil. Edwin Fischer taught (he was one of many, of course) Brendel. At some point, however, the string grows so long it loses its tension.
My point is that the further you travel from the font, from the great conductors and musicians of their day, the more diluted the tradition. I suppose you'd disagree.
Cortot, Schnabel, Fischer--- yes, you and Chris probably laugh at the missed notes, the inappropriate slurring, the elimination of phrases. I don't mind, because the passion and force is paramount to me. It's why I love Maria Callas--- and why many others do to and why she greatly outsells any other opera singer.
By your logic no one could possibly know how to play Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven et al from the baroque all the way to the romantic era> After all "the string grows long and loses tension."
You seem to miss the obvious though. Since the age of recording "the string loses no tension." Think about it.
One other little note. You really don't mind inappropriate slurring and "the elimination of phrases"? I'm guessing that you mean a lack of phrasing?
Are you really sure you want to say this in regards to Cortot, Schnabel and Fischer?
Of course one can read the music sheets. But I was speaking of a hands-on tradition. Of teachers teaching students who in turn taught other students who… The longer the string of PERSONAL connection becomes, the more difficult the connection to the original composer.
Listening to recordings cannot replace a teacher.
Lastly, I meant exactly that, "the elimination." Whether from lack of memory or editing, some performances by those artists left out sequences of notes.
Still, I enjoy their recordings for the passion. Music is a means, not an end. If you play all the notes with perfect technique, you still can leave an audience sleeping.
I will not provide examples, nor define sleeping. I regret any inconvenience.
"Of course one can read the music sheets. But I was speaking of a hands-on tradition. Of teachers teaching students who in turn taught other students who? The longer the string of PERSONAL connection becomes, the more difficult the connection to the original composer."
yeah I know. And where does that leave us with Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven etc etc etc? Pretty long string no?
"Listening to recordings cannot replace a teacher."
Teaching techniques are not at issue. They are better than ever as a result of building on prior knowledge. Recordings can and do inform musicians of past interpretations. We don't have that with the body of the classical repertoire. So your arguments would logically lead us to believe that excellence had already been lost well before the beginning of recorded music with most of the classical repertoire. Otherwise you are just drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.
"Lastly, I meant exactly that, "the elimination." Whether from lack of memory or editing, some performances by those artists left out sequences of notes."
leaving out sections of a composition is not leaving out phrasing. If you can't use such basic terminology such as "phrasing" as it is used in classical music there is no way to understand anything you say. But for the sake of clarity you are now asserting that artists such as Cortot left out sections of certain compositions but today's artists' do not do that? Just trying to make some sense of what you are saying...
"Still, I enjoy their recordings for the passion."
So you find Cortot's recordings particularly "passionate?" That is what draws you to Cortot? I wonder how you measure that "passion?"
"Music is a means, not an end. If you play all the notes with perfect technique, you still can leave an audience sleeping.
I will not provide examples, nor define sleeping. I regret any inconvenience."
Of course you won't. Here in lies the problem. I don't think you have any examples. I think you are just parroting an age old lament without actually having any meaningful experience to base it on. I think that is why your arguments decend into absurdity when scrutinized
The longer the string of PERSONAL connection becomes, the more difficult the connection to the original composer.
We've had this discussion before. There's nothing sacrosanct about a composer's interpretation of his own music.
To me, what sets Bach's music apart is, first, his amazing mastery of not just counterpoint but numerous other technical aspects of composition, and second and equally important, his equally amazing mastery of a large variety of widely divergent styles that were current in his time and earlier. It always annoys me when people assume there is a single "baroque style", as if there wasn't an immense variety in western music in that roughly 100-year period.
As for sound quality, yes, that matters too. I discussed Rachmaninov's piano playing below, but I can't pretend I listen to his recordings much, though I own them. The late Brian Cheney so strongly recommended a 1940 Bruno Walter recording of Bruckner's 4th Symphony here that I actually bought it. Ugh.
But I've learned so much from my historical recordings, I appreciate them greatly if for no other reason.
Bach mastered the various iterations of the baroque. He thought polyphonically. The Brandenbergs are the greatest example of the Italiian baroque. He took the Italian style to the greater heights than their native born. And yet some of his organ music displayed the majesty of northern European music. He was the greatest musical mind that ever walked the planet. Beethoven and Mozart would stand in line to shine his shoes.
BTW - Here's a wonderful performance of Lise doing BWV 543.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGLCwQjOcDg
Welcome to the Asylum! As you can see on this thread, we occasionally have some good dust ups! ;-)
The "greatest" NON-original mind!
you do such a bad job of speaking for yourself...
My wife and his wife (widow) still get together for lunch every couple of months.
True, I'm a fan in general of Haskil and Curzon in Mozart, Backhaus and Gulda in Beethoven, Backhaus and Lateiner in Brahms, Arrau in Debussy and Chopin (with a few exceptions, I suppose), and specific records of many other famous pianists of the recent and distant past.
But I'm happy to discover newer talent. Frederic Chiu did a superb set of Chopin Mazurkas that imo surpasses any of the historical versions I've heard, including Rubinstein's. I thought I'd never warm to the Goldberg Variations on harpsichord, then along came Pierre Hantai. Alexandre Tharaud has a superb technique and grasp of contemporary piano music as well as earlier stuff.
But let's face it, when it comes to Schumann's Kinderscenen and Abegg Variations, there are already some pretty darn good versions out there. I own a few, and I'm not desperately searching for another. Why is Lise De La Salle recording them? Because the combination of a pretty face and beloved well-known classics is more likely to sell CDs and downloads? Not to me.
Edit: Also, the standard performers of our childhood do not always become unreproachable legends. Look at some of the discussions below about Isaac Stern.
Edits: 08/27/14
"Why is Lise De La Salle recording them? Because the combination of a pretty face and beloved well-known classics is more likely to sell CDs and downloads?"
Or maybe the music speaks to her and she feels she has something to say about it?
Sounds to me as if Distler is not too far off here. She really does misread (or misplay) the rhythm in "Ritter vom Steckenpferd" ("Knight of the Hobbyhorse"), as Distler noted - I don't know what it is about this piece, but I've heard a couple of other recordings wherein the pianists make a similar rhythmic misinterpretation. Another thing I don't like is that she doesn't hold some of the longer notes for their full value - sometimes, this can be part of the rhetoric of an interpretation, but my feeling with Lise is that it's more a mannerism caused by unawareness. I asked by my wife what she thought of the playing, and she said, "Oh. . . it's OK. Lots of people could play it [Kinderszenen] that well."
Nice picture on the booklet cover though!
I listened to a Chopin recording by Lise, and heard some of that failure to hold sustained notes you mention. You're right, it's incredibly annoying, though I'm not sure why.
I had the same thoughts on Alice Sara Ott's Beethoven CD.
She has not been mentioned here but I think she's beautiful. Look at her pouty lips!
I don't know how she is compared to Yuja (she's cute rather than beautiful ) but her Beethoven CD was any indication, her style isn't to my liking at all.
Edits: 08/26/14
She's not bad, but not really my kind of interpreter. I was lukewarm about her Liszt Transcendental Etudes. Also had her Chopin Waltzes, which were better, although still not compelling IMHO. Haven't heard her later releases.EDIT: I forgot - she just got roped into doing this lame video (below) about her latest (or upcoming) release. Too cheesy for words. Adios, ASO!
Edits: 08/26/14
but he is better looking that she is. Nothing to say about the either's ability to play the piano :)
dee
;_D
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
quote by Kurt Vonnegut
Edits: 08/29/14
are all going to be in a 'not bad' group.
I only listened to her Beethoven CD and my bad I was comparing her to other giants from the past. Whilst I do not know much about the technical side of things other than she hits all the right keys, her interpretation skills and emotional range seem to be limited.
I don't have the will to listen to her Chopin Waltzes. :/
Doesn't harm the eyes....
Edits: 08/27/14 08/27/14 08/27/14
nt
.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
quote by Kurt Vonnegut
.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
Ah! Now I see that my reply ("The evidence speaks for itself") was not clear. By "the evidence", I did not mean Lise's picture on the booklet. Rather, I meant the evidence of the . . . uh. . . passionate discussion that my OP engendered (61 posts as of today). Yeah, I know a lot of it is by the usual suspects (including moi!), but you can't claim that no one cares.
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: