Discussion:
Rachmaninov D Major Prelude (Op. 23 #4)
(too old to reply)
j***@yahoo.com
2007-04-22 05:48:34 UTC
Permalink
I have Ashkenazy, Anievas, Lympany, Laredo, Cliburn, and Weissenberg.
Of these, Anievas comes off the most poetic yet him and
everyone else (except Weissenberg) are too slow. Weissenberg gets the
tempo right (3:38) but his surfaces are too hard. Who else is
there?
Mr Duffy
2007-04-22 07:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
I have Ashkenazy, Anievas, Lympany, Laredo, Cliburn, and Weissenberg.
Of these, Anievas comes off the most poetic yet him and
everyone else (except Weissenberg) are too slow. Weissenberg gets the
tempo right (3:38) but his surfaces are too hard. Who else is
there?
I made a comparison a couple of years ago with a friend of mine, listening
to Petkova, Ponti, Berman, Sokolov, Luganski, Cliburn, Lympany, Ashkenazy,
Sofronitsky. In our opinion, Sokolov and Sofronitsky stood way above the
other ones. in particular, I remember Sokolov playing all the Prelude piano,
with many subtle nuances, and in contrast the climax was unbeliavable. let's
call it 'inspiration' :)
bye, Mr Duffy
dk
2007-04-22 09:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Duffy
Post by j***@yahoo.com
I have Ashkenazy, Anievas, Lympany, Laredo, Cliburn, and Weissenberg.
Of these, Anievas comes off the most poetic yet him and
everyone else (except Weissenberg) are too slow. Weissenberg gets the
tempo right (3:38) but his surfaces are too hard. Who else is
there?
I made a comparison a couple of years ago with a friend of mine, listening
to Petkova, Ponti, Berman, Sokolov, Luganski, Cliburn, Lympany, Ashkenazy,
Sofronitsky. In our opinion, Sokolov and Sofronitsky stood way above the
other ones. in particular, I remember Sokolov playing all the Prelude piano,
with many subtle nuances, and in contrast the climax was unbeliavable. let's
call it 'inspiration' :)
bye, Mr Duffy
Your conclusions are simply not valid without Richter.


dk
Mr Duffy
2007-04-22 09:41:40 UTC
Permalink
dk
Post by dk
Post by Mr Duffy
I made a comparison a couple of years ago with a friend of mine,
listening to Petkova, Ponti, Berman, Sokolov, Luganski, Cliburn,
Lympany, Ashkenazy, Sofronitsky. In our opinion, Sokolov and
Sofronitsky stood way above the other ones. in particular, I
remember Sokolov playing all the Prelude piano, with many
subtle nuances, and in contrast the climax was unbeliavable.
let's call it 'inspiration' :)
Your conclusions are simply not valid without Richter.
my opinion was never intended as conclusive. if yours is, some more
argumentation would be welcome.
bye, Mr Duffy
h***@yahoo.com
2007-04-22 10:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Duffy
Post by dk
Your conclusions are simply not valid without Richter.
my opinion was never intended as conclusive. if yours is, some more
argumentation would be welcome.
bye, Mr Duffy
Richter folks don't do argumentation.

Herman
dk
2007-04-22 18:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Duffy
dk
Post by dk
Post by Mr Duffy
I made a comparison a couple of years ago with a friend of mine,
listening to Petkova, Ponti, Berman, Sokolov, Luganski, Cliburn,
Lympany, Ashkenazy, Sofronitsky. In our opinion, Sokolov and
Sofronitsky stood way above the other ones. in particular, I
remember Sokolov playing all the Prelude piano, with many
subtle nuances, and in contrast the climax was unbeliavable.
let's call it 'inspiration' :)
Your conclusions are simply not valid without Richter.
my opinion was never intended as conclusive. if yours is, some more
argumentation would be welcome.
bye, Mr Duffy
just do your homework. first.

any comparison of rachmaninov recordings without
richter in the mix reeks of professional malpractice
and amateurism ;-)


dk
Bob Lombard
2007-04-22 20:43:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by dk
any comparison of rachmaninov recordings without
richter in the mix reeks of professional malpractice
and amateurism ;-)
dk
rachmaninoff recordings without richter reeks?

bl
Rugby
2007-04-23 00:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Richter's Rach recordings really rarely reflect Richter's recognizably
richest Russian renderings, regardless.Rather review Richter's
remarkable remaining Russians.
dk
2007-04-22 09:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
I have Ashkenazy, Anievas, Lympany, Laredo, Cliburn, and Weissenberg.
Of these, Anievas comes off the most poetic yet him and
everyone else (except Weissenberg) are too slow. Weissenberg gets the
tempo right (3:38) but his surfaces are too hard. Who else is
there?
Only Richter...


dk
Leon Bennett
2007-04-22 12:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Try Prokofiev's performance on, I think, an Ampico piano roll, he brings out
the inner voices in the middle lyrical section in a marvellous way. Used to
be available on CD in the Condon Collection.
Cheers
Craig
Australia
Post by j***@yahoo.com
I have Ashkenazy, Anievas, Lympany, Laredo, Cliburn, and Weissenberg.
Of these, Anievas comes off the most poetic yet him and
everyone else (except Weissenberg) are too slow. Weissenberg gets the
tempo right (3:38) but his surfaces are too hard. Who else is
there?
Rugby
2007-04-22 12:59:40 UTC
Permalink
Constance Keene, if you can find her. If not, I might be able to
YouSend you if interested.
dk
2007-04-24 05:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rugby
Constance Keene, if you can find her.
Quoting Abram Chasins?


dk

n***@comcast.net
2007-04-23 02:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
I have Ashkenazy, Anievas, Lympany, Laredo, Cliburn, and Weissenberg.
Of these, Anievas comes off the most poetic yet him and
everyone else (except Weissenberg) are too slow. Weissenberg gets the
tempo right (3:38) but his surfaces are too hard. Who else is
there?
Rodriguez is positively the best.

Norm Strong
Loading...