Discussion:
Goldberg Recordings
(too old to reply)
ViveOistrach
2014-02-21 03:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,

I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?

As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...

Thanks in advance!
jrsnfld
2014-02-21 07:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
Try Ekaterina Derzhavina, Sergei Schepkin, Maria Tipo, and Konstanin Lifschitz. I expect Zhu Xiao-Mei's Goldbergs would be a worthy purchase too, but I haven't bought them yet.

--Jeff
wkasimer
2014-02-21 14:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Try Ekaterina Derzhavina, Sergei Schepkin, Maria Tipo, and Konstantin Lifschitz.<<<
Excellent recommendations. I'd add Koroliov, Weissenberg, and Denk.

Has anyone heard Sokolov's? I believe that it's recent been issued (reissued?)?

Bill
Lionel Tacchini
2014-02-21 08:27:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by ViveOistrach
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more
depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a
long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I
have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It
was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially
Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed
interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
The best way of getting de-used to Gould, as an opening step to an
enlarged experience, is probably to move to performances on the
harpsichord (I could propose Staier, Verlet or Leonhardt and there will
be many more worthy of notice).

The Art of Fugue will be very well served with the ensemble version by
Music Antiqua Köln.

I have found the exposure to widely differing views on particular works
to be liberating in that I no longer feel that composers of central
masterpieces exactly knew what they wanted, the potential in these works
being what gives them their stature.
--
Lionel Tacchini
Oscar
2014-02-21 08:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Virginia Black on Collins Classics for harpsichord, too.
Bozo
2014-02-21 13:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Jeremy Denk.

Here free listening ( scroll down ) : http://www.gardnermuseum.org/music/listen/music_library

He also has a later, recent cd. Paired with Ligeti Etudes, if I recall.
William Sommerwerck
2014-02-21 15:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Avoid the recent Schiff "Goldbergs". It starts off magnificently, then
stodgifies. Pinnock's harpsichord version is quite good, if I recall.

You won't like this recommendation, but toss the Gould. The 1955 performance
is, to put it kindly, perverse, useful only for demonstrating that the piece
doesn't have to be boring. It no longer serves a useful purpose. Even Gould
disowned it. (No, I don't have the quote.)

My favorite "Art of Fugue" is William Malloch's arrangement, * conducted by
Lukas Foss, on Sheffield. It is totally "disrespectful" -- it treats the work
as if it were music to be enjoyed (in every sense of the word), rather than as
A Great Work Of Art to be worshipped. This disk is out of print, and commands
a ridiculously high price. (I was lucky to find a second copy at a low price a
few years ago.)

* I initially wrote "transcription", then remembered that it isn't for any
particular instrument.
td
2014-02-21 16:31:22 UTC
Permalink
I forget which microphone version was used for the CD issue? The original LPs (2 sets, I recall) used different ones for each set.

I think I have this CD set, but have no idea where I have put it.

TD
m***@gmail.com
2014-02-21 19:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
IMO, there are *many* options preferable to the three you've heard recently. I like Jeff and Bill's suggestions and would single out Koroliov (immense virtuosity, much greater range of expression than Gould's, completely fascinating; runs long enough that it's on 2 CDs) and Tipo (romantic, charming, tremendous grace, pleasing to the ear).

SE.
Steve Emerson
2014-02-22 22:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth
after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time -
now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the
following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first
try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould
almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other
recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters
WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I
generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
IMO, there are *many* options preferable to the three you've heard recently.
I like Jeff and Bill's suggestions and would single out Koroliov (immense
virtuosity, much greater range of expression than Gould's, completely
fascinating; runs long enough that it's on 2 CDs) and Tipo (romantic,
charming, tremendous grace, pleasing to the ear).
And I omitted the intense and wrenching Maria Yudina, who resembles no
one mentioned above. Hard to think of a better Yudina recording. Less
convinced by her Diabellis, but TD really got it right in representing
MY with the Goldbergs.

SE.
td
2014-02-22 23:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Emerson
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth
after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time -
now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the
following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first
try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould
almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other
recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters
WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I
generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
IMO, there are *many* options preferable to the three you've heard recently.
I like Jeff and Bill's suggestions and would single out Koroliov (immense
virtuosity, much greater range of expression than Gould's, completely
fascinating; runs long enough that it's on 2 CDs) and Tipo (romantic,
charming, tremendous grace, pleasing to the ear).
And I omitted the intense and wrenching Maria Yudina, who resembles no
one mentioned above. Hard to think of a better Yudina recording. Less
convinced by her Diabellis, but TD really got it right in representing
MY with the Goldbergs.
You have NO idea how much studio time was needed to get that mastertape "in tune" throughout the Goldbergs, Steve. Their recording machine must have been drunk, as the speed kept changing, even in the middle of a variation. Endless hours were spent getting that right, or, well, sort of right.

To give credit where credit is due, the suggestion came from one of the Melodiya people, an archivist in their tape library, as a matter of fact. And I thought it was a great idea once I heard them, particularly with the pairing.

TD
Mandryka
2014-02-23 09:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Here's a live one from Hantaï in 2000 which I think is particularly good. Sad, serious.


JohnGavin
2014-02-23 12:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mandryka
Here's a live one from Hantaï in 2000 which I think is particularly good. Sad, serious.
http://youtu.be/9NYqiKm3gng
I can't imagine a discussion of the Goldbergs without mentioning Landowska (especially the 1933 recording). For me it's a permanent fixture.
Mandryka
2014-02-23 14:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnGavin
Post by Mandryka
Here's a live one from Hantaï in 2000 which I think is particularly good. Sad, serious.
http://youtu.be/9NYqiKm3gng
I can't imagine a discussion of the Goldbergs without mentioning Landowska (especially the 1933 recording). For me it's a permanent fixture.
Have you tried the second recording? In my opinion she was already starting to go funny by then -- the best Landowska is pre-1940 IMO. It's a great shame that we don't have an earlier recording of Well Tempered Clavier from her.

Strange that the world of early harpsichord recordings is dominated by Lesbians. It's a shame that we don't have more Bach from Violet Gordon-Woodhouse.


All the early Goldbergs seem OK to me, though none are a favourite -- not just Landowska's, but also Enice Norton's and Serkin's and Arrau's.
td
2014-02-23 18:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mandryka
Post by JohnGavin
Post by Mandryka
Here's a live one from Hantaï in 2000 which I think is particularly good. Sad, serious.
http://youtu.be/9NYqiKm3gng
I can't imagine a discussion of the Goldbergs without mentioning Landowska (especially the 1933 recording). For me it's a permanent fixture.
Have you tried the second recording? In my opinion she was already starting to go funny by then -- the best Landowska is pre-1940 IMO. It's a great shame that we don't have an earlier recording of Well Tempered Clavier from her.
"go funny"?

TD
Mandryka
2014-02-23 21:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Post by Mandryka
Post by JohnGavin
Post by Mandryka
Here's a live one from Hantaï in 2000 which I think is particularly good. Sad, serious.
http://youtu.be/9NYqiKm3gng
I can't imagine a discussion of the Goldbergs without mentioning Landowska (especially the 1933 recording). For me it's a permanent fixture.
Have you tried the second recording? In my opinion she was already starting to go funny by then -- the best Landowska is pre-1940 IMO. It's a great shame that we don't have an earlier recording of Well Tempered Clavier from her.
"go funny"?
TD
Go funny = become strange.

I do find some of what's in the later recordings strange -- the WTC 2, the Mozart and Haydn, they're the ones I know best I think.

An example I came across just recently is the turgid way she plays the prelude of BWV 870. The music almost grinds to a halt at one point.
JohnGavin
2014-02-23 22:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mandryka
Post by td
Post by Mandryka
Post by JohnGavin
Post by Mandryka
Here's a live one from Hantaï in 2000 which I think is particularly good. Sad, serious.
http://youtu.be/9NYqiKm3gng
I can't imagine a discussion of the Goldbergs without mentioning Landowska (especially the 1933 recording). For me it's a permanent fixture.
Have you tried the second recording? In my opinion she was already starting to go funny by then -- the best Landowska is pre-1940 IMO. It's a great shame that we don't have an earlier recording of Well Tempered Clavier from her.
"go funny"?
TD
Go funny = become strange.
I do find some of what's in the later recordings strange -- the WTC 2, the Mozart and Haydn, they're the ones I know best I think.
On those RCA late Mozart and Haydn recordings I agree in so far as they sound a bit lacking in energy, too frail - but I don't find them strange - just way past her prime.

You are clearly of the "authenticity" school of harpsichordists and so you're probably comparing her to them. That's fine, or course, but I'll take her over most of them any time.
Post by Mandryka
An example I came across just recently is the turgid way she plays the prelude of BWV 870. The music almost grinds to a halt at one point.
Her playing always has an emotional investment that I often find lacking in Leonhardt and his brood. Each to his own.
td
2014-02-23 23:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnGavin
Post by Mandryka
Post by td
Post by Mandryka
Post by JohnGavin
Post by Mandryka
Here's a live one from Hantaï in 2000 which I think is particularly good. Sad, serious.
http://youtu.be/9NYqiKm3gng
I can't imagine a discussion of the Goldbergs without mentioning Landowska (especially the 1933 recording). For me it's a permanent fixture.
Have you tried the second recording? In my opinion she was already starting to go funny by then -- the best Landowska is pre-1940 IMO. It's a great shame that we don't have an earlier recording of Well Tempered Clavier from her.
"go funny"?
TD
Go funny = become strange.
I do find some of what's in the later recordings strange -- the WTC 2, the Mozart and Haydn, they're the ones I know best I think.
On those RCA late Mozart and Haydn recordings I agree in so far as they sound a bit lacking in energy, too frail - but I don't find them strange - just way past her prime.
You are clearly of the "authenticity" school of harpsichordists and so you're probably comparing her to them. That's fine, or course, but I'll take her over most of them any time.
Post by Mandryka
An example I came across just recently is the turgid way she plays the prelude of BWV 870. The music almost grinds to a halt at one point.
Her playing always has an emotional investment that I often find lacking in Leonhardt and his brood. Each to his own.
I agree, John.

And RHYTHM!!!

TD
Mandryka
2014-02-24 08:25:33 UTC
Permalink
One thing Landowska wrote is

'Someone said to me: "I love the way you play the Goldberg Variations. In one of the Variations, however, you make a rubato that I do not understand. I cannot follow you there". I answered that it did not matter, and I thought: "I am perfectly happy, alone with my rubato. Why should you follow me?'
td
2014-02-24 11:03:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mandryka
One thing Landowska wrote is
'Someone said to me: "I love the way you play the Goldberg Variations. In one of the Variations, however, you make a rubato that I do not understand. I cannot follow you there". I answered that it did not matter, and I thought: "I am perfectly happy, alone with my rubato. Why should you follow me?'
Lovely retort.

She was no fool, our Wanda.

TD
Andrej Kluge
2014-02-24 18:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by m***@gmail.com
recently. I like Jeff and Bill's suggestions and would single out
Koroliov (immense virtuosity, much greater range of expression than
Gould's, completely fascinating; runs long enough that it's on 2 CDs)
I don't know what you guys find attractive about Koroliov -- I just sampled
the 1st mvmt of his French Suites (the Allemande of BWV 812), and his
liberties about tempo choice drove me crazy. If he plays the Goldberg
Veriations equally, I'll pass. But apparantly I'm the only one here who
thinks Bach works only when played meticulously in tempo, without much
agogics, rubato etc.
Post by m***@gmail.com
and Tipo (romantic, charming, tremendous grace, pleasing to the ear).
What does this supposed to mean? What's "pleasing to the ear" to you?
Romanticism?

FWIW, I prefer Gould to any other piano recording so far. His tempo choices
may be off (or not) some times, but in general (on piano), noone equals him
in capturing the music and the separate rendition of voices (I remember that
Webersinke and maybe Perahia was close, and Kraus, on harpsichord).

Ciao
AK
(back to lurking)
Mandryka
2014-02-24 19:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrej Kluge
Hi,
Post by m***@gmail.com
recently. I like Jeff and Bill's suggestions and would single out
Koroliov (immense virtuosity, much greater range of expression than
Gould's, completely fascinating; runs long enough that it's on 2 CDs)
I don't know what you guys find attractive about Koroliov -- I just sampled
the 1st mvmt of his French Suites (the Allemande of BWV 812), and his
liberties about tempo choice drove me crazy. If he plays the Goldberg
Veriations equally, I'll pass. But apparantly I'm the only one here who
thinks Bach works only when played meticulously in tempo, without much
agogics, rubato etc.
Post by m***@gmail.com
and Tipo (romantic, charming, tremendous grace, pleasing to the ear).
What does this supposed to mean? What's "pleasing to the ear" to you?
Romanticism?
FWIW, I prefer Gould to any other piano recording so far. His tempo choices
may be off (or not) some times, but in general (on piano), noone equals him
in capturing the music and the separate rendition of voices (I remember that
Webersinke and maybe Perahia was close, and Kraus, on harpsichord).
Ciao
AK
(back to lurking)
But Gould takes quite a few liberties with tempo in The French Suites and elsewhere/ Listen to the allemande in BWV 815. Too fast, glib. And in Var 25 of The Goldbergs, I can hear plenty of expressive rubato in Gould, 1955 esp, but also 1981. So I don't think you're being quite fair. If you really want no agogocs go to Walcha, or Leonhardt's very early recordings. or maybe Kirkpatrick.

It just seems wrongheaded to me to NOT use rhythmic rubato in Bach. I mean, we know that he would have expected performers to use it. And in some hands, the rubato feels natural.

For clear counterpoint on piano in the Goldbergs, try Walter Riemer.

I object to pianists who use dynamic contrasts much more. That seems alien to the music to me, and vulgar.
td
2014-02-24 20:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mandryka
Post by Andrej Kluge
Hi,
Post by m***@gmail.com
recently. I like Jeff and Bill's suggestions and would single out
Koroliov (immense virtuosity, much greater range of expression than
Gould's, completely fascinating; runs long enough that it's on 2 CDs)
I don't know what you guys find attractive about Koroliov -- I just sampled
the 1st mvmt of his French Suites (the Allemande of BWV 812), and his
liberties about tempo choice drove me crazy. If he plays the Goldberg
Veriations equally, I'll pass. But apparantly I'm the only one here who
thinks Bach works only when played meticulously in tempo, without much
agogics, rubato etc.
Post by m***@gmail.com
and Tipo (romantic, charming, tremendous grace, pleasing to the ear).
What does this supposed to mean? What's "pleasing to the ear" to you?
Romanticism?
FWIW, I prefer Gould to any other piano recording so far. His tempo choices
may be off (or not) some times, but in general (on piano), noone equals him
in capturing the music and the separate rendition of voices (I remember that
Webersinke and maybe Perahia was close, and Kraus, on harpsichord).
Ciao
AK
(back to lurking)
But Gould takes quite a few liberties with tempo in The French Suites and elsewhere/ Listen to the allemande in BWV 815. Too fast, glib. And in Var 25 of The Goldbergs, I can hear plenty of expressive rubato in Gould, 1955 esp, but also 1981. So I don't think you're being quite fair. If you really want no agogocs go to Walcha, or Leonhardt's very early recordings. or maybe Kirkpatrick.
It just seems wrongheaded to me to NOT use rhythmic rubato in Bach. I mean, we know that he would have expected performers to use it. And in some hands, the rubato feels natural.
For clear counterpoint on piano in the Goldbergs, try Walter Riemer.
I object to pianists who use dynamic contrasts much more. That seems alien to the music to me, and vulgar.
It has to be said that Gould is one of the most romantic of pianists to have ever tackled the Goldberg Variations. It is incredible to me that anyone can think of him as even vaguely authentic in the performance of Bach. He practially swoons in this music. Sure, he likes the moto perpetuo from time to time, but most often he plays with the music as though it were warm toffee.

TD
Andrej Kluge
2014-02-26 19:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

(please cut your posts to the "chase")
Post by td
It has to be said that Gould is one of the most romantic of pianists
to have ever tackled the Goldberg Variations.
And yet he does what many o musicians cant't get across. Rubato in the right
places, but never where it is unapproriate. That's the secret.
Post by td
It is incredible to me that anyone can think of him as even vaguely
authentic in the
performance of Bach.
Until we invent a time machine we will never know.
Post by td
He practially swoons in this music.
So?
Post by td
Sure, he likes the moto perpetuo from time to time, but most often he
plays
with the music as though it were warm toffee.
See above. If one have a sense of rhythm...

Ciao
AK
td
2014-02-26 21:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Swooning is not authentic. Leave that for Hollywood starlets and Justin Bieber's fans.

TD
Andrej Kluge
2014-02-26 19:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Mandryka
But Gould takes quite a few liberties with tempo in The French Suites and
elsewhere/ Listen to the allemande in BWV 815. Too fast, glib. And in Var
25 of The Goldbergs, I can hear plenty of expressive rubato in Gould, 1955
esp, but also 1981. So I don't think you're being quite fair.
Yes, I know, but his rubato is in places where it doesn't interrupt the
music's flow. Don't know how to explain it, I'd have to show actual samples.
Where it is appropriate, he "rubates", and where it is not, he doesn't.
Post by Mandryka
If you really want no agogocs go to Walcha, or Leonhardt's very early
recordings. or maybe Kirkpatrick.
I know all of them, and Walcha comes closest. Although everything he plays
is like under Valium. Leonard and Kirkpatrick are very sketchy in this
respect (nothing I'd like to hear again). Kraus is almost perfect
throughout. (he doesn't only sticks to the rhythm but actually goes with the
ductus of the music)

I have almost the cmplete WTC with him, but his widow asked me not to upload
it to YouTube (there are soime examples anyway, for the likes of me who
appreciate his playing)
Post by Mandryka
It just seems wrongheaded to me to NOT use rhythmic rubato in Bach. I
mean, we know that he would have expected performers to use it. And in
some hands, the rubato feels natural.
Yes, with Gould for instance.
Post by Mandryka
For clear counterpoint on piano in the Goldbergs, try Walter Riemer.
Thanks, I sampled some of him on Amazon, but no Bach, only Schubert
available. And too short to judge.

Ciao
AK
m***@gmail.com
2014-02-25 19:34:54 UTC
Permalink
You seem little grumpy here, Andrej. Bad day? "Pleasing to the ear" means the sounds emanating from the piano are attractive. You've heard the phrase "never an ugly note"? It's a little like that, but in the affirmative and saying somewhat more than that the sounds are simply non-ugly. Yes, it is subjective. OTOH, I think it refers to values generally embraced even by people who play or teach the piano for a living.

SE.
Post by Andrej Kluge
Hi,
Post by m***@gmail.com
recently. I like Jeff and Bill's suggestions and would single out
Koroliov (immense virtuosity, much greater range of expression than
Gould's, completely fascinating; runs long enough that it's on 2 CDs)
I don't know what you guys find attractive about Koroliov -- I just sampled
the 1st mvmt of his French Suites (the Allemande of BWV 812), and his
liberties about tempo choice drove me crazy. If he plays the Goldberg
Veriations equally, I'll pass. But apparantly I'm the only one here who
thinks Bach works only when played meticulously in tempo, without much
agogics, rubato etc.
Post by m***@gmail.com
and Tipo (romantic, charming, tremendous grace, pleasing to the ear).
What does this supposed to mean? What's "pleasing to the ear" to you?
Romanticism?
FWIW, I prefer Gould to any other piano recording so far. His tempo choices
may be off (or not) some times, but in general (on piano), noone equals him
in capturing the music and the separate rendition of voices (I remember that
Webersinke and maybe Perahia was close, and Kraus, on harpsichord).
Ciao
AK
(back to lurking)
Andrej Kluge
2014-02-26 18:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
You seem little grumpy here, Andrej. Bad day?
Actually, yes. Sorry. (I deleted my post, but a tad too late)
"Pleasing to the ear" means the sounds emanating from the piano are
attractive. You've
heard the phrase "never an ugly note"?
No, I actually haven't. What does it mean, or in which context is it used?
It's a little like that, but in the affirmative and saying somewhat
more than that the sounds are simply non-ugly. Yes, it is subjective.
OTOH, I think it refers to values generally embraced even by people
who play or teach the piano for a living.
Well, yes, I guess that's true. Suggestive. I remember one of my music
classes many years ago, when I was 10 or so, we had to sing a song in chorus
(without any instrumental accompaniment), and all of my classmates were
advancing to the next part without the proper pause (as you hear it very
often when people sing solo), and I protested to my teacher, and she
complimented me on that but conceded to the rest of the group. Obviously I
am sensitive to rhythm although I don't play any instrument fluently (clumsy
hands).

Thats why I enjoy performers all the more who share my notion of rhythmical
accurance, and why I can't stand those who don't.

Ciao
AK
Steve Emerson
2014-02-27 04:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrej Kluge
Hi,
You seem little grumpy here, Andrej. Bad day?
Actually, yes. Sorry. (I deleted my post, but a tad too late)
"Pleasing to the ear" means the sounds emanating from the piano are
attractive. You've
heard the phrase "never an ugly note"?
No, I actually haven't. What does it mean, or in which context is it used?
In praise of a pianist's performance. Means, e.g., the sounds are never
metallic or clangy or percussive. (I guess people don't use the term to
praise somebody's Bartok playing; or they use it to praise somebody who
plays Bartok wrongly; just one example.)
Post by Andrej Kluge
It's a little like that, but in the affirmative and saying somewhat
more than that the sounds are simply non-ugly. Yes, it is subjective.
OTOH, I think it refers to values generally embraced even by people
who play or teach the piano for a living.
Well, yes, I guess that's true. Suggestive. I remember one of my music
classes many years ago, when I was 10 or so, we had to sing a song in chorus
(without any instrumental accompaniment), and all of my classmates were
advancing to the next part without the proper pause (as you hear it very
often when people sing solo), and I protested to my teacher, and she
complimented me on that but conceded to the rest of the group. Obviously I
am sensitive to rhythm although I don't play any instrument fluently (clumsy
hands).
Thats why I enjoy performers all the more who share my notion of rhythmical
accurance, and why I can't stand those who don't.
With that good an ear for rhythm, you'd be in a good position to
appreciate somebody's rubato. (smiley)

Not that you meant it this way, but: Tipo being "pleasing to the ear,"
or a pianist never playing an ugly note -- these have nothing to do with
rubato. They have to do with the notes themselves, not how they are
placed.

SE.
td
2014-02-27 11:58:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Emerson
Post by Andrej Kluge
Hi,
You seem little grumpy here, Andrej. Bad day?
Actually, yes. Sorry. (I deleted my post, but a tad too late)
"Pleasing to the ear" means the sounds emanating from the piano are
attractive. You've
heard the phrase "never an ugly note"?
No, I actually haven't. What does it mean, or in which context is it used?
In praise of a pianist's performance. Means, e.g., the sounds are never
metallic or clangy or percussive. (I guess people don't use the term to
praise somebody's Bartok playing; or they use it to praise somebody who
plays Bartok wrongly; just one example.)
Post by Andrej Kluge
It's a little like that, but in the affirmative and saying somewhat
more than that the sounds are simply non-ugly. Yes, it is subjective.
OTOH, I think it refers to values generally embraced even by people
who play or teach the piano for a living.
Well, yes, I guess that's true. Suggestive. I remember one of my music
classes many years ago, when I was 10 or so, we had to sing a song in chorus
(without any instrumental accompaniment), and all of my classmates were
advancing to the next part without the proper pause (as you hear it very
often when people sing solo), and I protested to my teacher, and she
complimented me on that but conceded to the rest of the group. Obviously I
am sensitive to rhythm although I don't play any instrument fluently (clumsy
hands).
Thats why I enjoy performers all the more who share my notion of rhythmical
accurance, and why I can't stand those who don't.
With that good an ear for rhythm, you'd be in a good position to
appreciate somebody's rubato. (smiley)
Not that you meant it this way, but: Tipo being "pleasing to the ear,"
or a pianist never playing an ugly note -- these have nothing to do with
rubato. They have to do with the notes themselves, not how they are
placed.
Not just placed, Steve, but made to sound. She NEVER "goes through her tone", as they used to say. By way of comparison, many Russian-trained pianists do go through their tone. Horowitz is the prime example. But Gilels does it also, particularly in his youth. That said, Gilels always had a massive sound rather than a thin clangorous sound that VH favoured.

Indeed, the entire Soviet school of post war pianists seemed to be bangers, the very antithesis of the old school and, to bring the subject back to your example, of Maria Tipo. Fiorentino could also serve as an example. Vladimir Ashkenazy serves as an exception to that rule about Soviet pianists, by the way. He was born a lyrical pianist. He only became a kind of piano-machine later in his career.

The disease which hit piano-playing in the 1950s can, in fact, be traced back to young pianists attempting to imitate Horowitz. The "next Horowitz" became a term of approval. So, bang, bang, bang, fast, faster, fastest were the operative words for an entire generation. The preferred vehicle was, of course, the Rach 3, where the solution was to bang louder and faster than anyone else, whereupon you would conquer the music. LOL

And then along came pianists like Argerich, Freire, Gelber, all from South America (and one could mention many other South American pianists who fit this generalization), who could not only play fast and loud but also had a quality of litheness, elusiveness. They proceeded by indirection rather than direction to achieve their goals. They were like cats rather than Soviet tanks. Very refreshing change of perspective.

There are, of course, lots and lots of exceptions to these vast generalizations. The entire French school, for example, as well as the German and Viennese schools. I accept that. But I like to think that it's kind of fun to look back and see how the performance of music has changed over the years.

TD
Bozo
2014-02-27 14:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
There are, of course, lots and lots of exceptions to these vast generalizations.
Van Cliburn for one. He of course won a Leventritt ( 1954 ? 56 ? ) ; Malcom Frager did not. I can't recall off hand who else was in the Leventritt Competition with Frager or Cliburn.
td
2014-02-27 20:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bozo
Post by td
There are, of course, lots and lots of exceptions to these vast generalizations.
Van Cliburn for one. He of course won a Leventritt ( 1954 ? 56 ? ) ; Malcom Frager did not. I can't recall off hand who else was in the Leventritt Competition with Frager or Cliburn.
The Levintritt predates all the more famous recent competitions. Weissenberg won the Levintritt, I think.

Here's the list:


1981: Cecile Licad, piano (Licad was given the award although no competition was held)
1976: No first prize awarded[2]
1969: Joseph Kalichstein, piano[3]
1967: Kyung-wha Chung & Pinchas Zukerman, violin (joint recipients)
1965: Tong-Il Han, piano[4]
1964: Itzhak Perlman, violin[5]
1962: Michel Block, piano
1959: Malcolm Frager, piano[6][7]
1958: Arnold Steinhardt, violin[8]
1957: Anton Kuerti, piano
1955: Betty-Jean Hagen, violin [9]
1954: Van Cliburn, piano
1949: Gary Graffman, piano
1947: Alexis Weissenberg, piano
1945: Louise Meiszner, piano
1943: Eugene Istomin, piano
1941: Sidney Foster, piano


TD
operafan
2014-02-27 23:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bozo
Post by td
There are, of course, lots and lots of exceptions to these vast generalizations.
Van Cliburn for one. He of course won a Leventritt ( 1954 ? 56 ? ) ; Malcom Frager did not. I can't recall off hand who else was in the Leventritt Competition with Frager or Cliburn.
Frager won the Leventritt in 1959.
Bob Lombard
2014-02-27 14:39:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Post by Steve Emerson
Post by Andrej Kluge
Hi,
You seem little grumpy here, Andrej. Bad day?
Actually, yes. Sorry. (I deleted my post, but a tad too late)
"Pleasing to the ear" means the sounds emanating from the piano are
attractive. You've
heard the phrase "never an ugly note"?
No, I actually haven't. What does it mean, or in which context is it used?
In praise of a pianist's performance. Means, e.g., the sounds are never
metallic or clangy or percussive. (I guess people don't use the term to
praise somebody's Bartok playing; or they use it to praise somebody who
plays Bartok wrongly; just one example.)
Post by Andrej Kluge
It's a little like that, but in the affirmative and saying somewhat
more than that the sounds are simply non-ugly. Yes, it is subjective.
OTOH, I think it refers to values generally embraced even by people
who play or teach the piano for a living.
Well, yes, I guess that's true. Suggestive. I remember one of my music
classes many years ago, when I was 10 or so, we had to sing a song in chorus
(without any instrumental accompaniment), and all of my classmates were
advancing to the next part without the proper pause (as you hear it very
often when people sing solo), and I protested to my teacher, and she
complimented me on that but conceded to the rest of the group. Obviously I
am sensitive to rhythm although I don't play any instrument fluently (clumsy
hands).
Thats why I enjoy performers all the more who share my notion of rhythmical
accurance, and why I can't stand those who don't.
With that good an ear for rhythm, you'd be in a good position to
appreciate somebody's rubato. (smiley)
Not that you meant it this way, but: Tipo being "pleasing to the ear,"
or a pianist never playing an ugly note -- these have nothing to do with
rubato. They have to do with the notes themselves, not how they are
placed.
Not just placed, Steve, but made to sound. She NEVER "goes through her tone", as they used to say. By way of comparison, many Russian-trained pianists do go through their tone. Horowitz is the prime example. But Gilels does it also, particularly in his youth. That said, Gilels always had a massive sound rather than a thin clangorous sound that VH favoured.
Indeed, the entire Soviet school of post war pianists seemed to be bangers, the very antithesis of the old school and, to bring the subject back to your example, of Maria Tipo. Fiorentino could also serve as an example. Vladimir Ashkenazy serves as an exception to that rule about Soviet pianists, by the way. He was born a lyrical pianist. He only became a kind of piano-machine later in his career.
The disease which hit piano-playing in the 1950s can, in fact, be traced back to young pianists attempting to imitate Horowitz. The "next Horowitz" became a term of approval. So, bang, bang, bang, fast, faster, fastest were the operative words for an entire generation. The preferred vehicle was, of course, the Rach 3, where the solution was to bang louder and faster than anyone else, whereupon you would conquer the music. LOL
And then along came pianists like Argerich, Freire, Gelber, all from South America (and one could mention many other South American pianists who fit this generalization), who could not only play fast and loud but also had a quality of litheness, elusiveness. They proceeded by indirection rather than direction to achieve their goals. They were like cats rather than Soviet tanks. Very refreshing change of perspective.
There are, of course, lots and lots of exceptions to these vast generalizations. The entire French school, for example, as well as the German and Viennese schools. I accept that. But I like to think that it's kind of fun to look back and see how the performance of music has changed over the years.
TD
An entertaining post, Tom. Your description of Horowitz's playing
reminds me of the emails I get from the Republican National Committee -
so twisted they squeak. So twisted that Truth must tiptoe out of the
room you are posting from (she owns no barn boots).

bl

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
td
2014-02-27 20:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by td
Post by Steve Emerson
Post by Andrej Kluge
Hi,
You seem little grumpy here, Andrej. Bad day?
Actually, yes. Sorry. (I deleted my post, but a tad too late)
"Pleasing to the ear" means the sounds emanating from the piano are
attractive. You've
heard the phrase "never an ugly note"?
No, I actually haven't. What does it mean, or in which context is it used?
In praise of a pianist's performance. Means, e.g., the sounds are never
metallic or clangy or percussive. (I guess people don't use the term to
praise somebody's Bartok playing; or they use it to praise somebody who
plays Bartok wrongly; just one example.)
Post by Andrej Kluge
It's a little like that, but in the affirmative and saying somewhat
more than that the sounds are simply non-ugly. Yes, it is subjective.
OTOH, I think it refers to values generally embraced even by people
who play or teach the piano for a living.
Well, yes, I guess that's true. Suggestive. I remember one of my music
classes many years ago, when I was 10 or so, we had to sing a song in chorus
(without any instrumental accompaniment), and all of my classmates were
advancing to the next part without the proper pause (as you hear it very
often when people sing solo), and I protested to my teacher, and she
complimented me on that but conceded to the rest of the group. Obviously I
am sensitive to rhythm although I don't play any instrument fluently (clumsy
hands).
Thats why I enjoy performers all the more who share my notion of rhythmical
accurance, and why I can't stand those who don't.
With that good an ear for rhythm, you'd be in a good position to
appreciate somebody's rubato. (smiley)
Not that you meant it this way, but: Tipo being "pleasing to the ear,"
or a pianist never playing an ugly note -- these have nothing to do with
rubato. They have to do with the notes themselves, not how they are
placed.
Not just placed, Steve, but made to sound. She NEVER "goes through her tone", as they used to say. By way of comparison, many Russian-trained pianists do go through their tone. Horowitz is the prime example. But Gilels does it also, particularly in his youth. That said, Gilels always had a massive sound rather than a thin clangorous sound that VH favoured.
Indeed, the entire Soviet school of post war pianists seemed to be bangers, the very antithesis of the old school and, to bring the subject back to your example, of Maria Tipo. Fiorentino could also serve as an example. Vladimir Ashkenazy serves as an exception to that rule about Soviet pianists, by the way. He was born a lyrical pianist. He only became a kind of piano-machine later in his career.
The disease which hit piano-playing in the 1950s can, in fact, be traced back to young pianists attempting to imitate Horowitz. The "next Horowitz" became a term of approval. So, bang, bang, bang, fast, faster, fastest were the operative words for an entire generation. The preferred vehicle was, of course, the Rach 3, where the solution was to bang louder and faster than anyone else, whereupon you would conquer the music. LOL
And then along came pianists like Argerich, Freire, Gelber, all from South America (and one could mention many other South American pianists who fit this generalization), who could not only play fast and loud but also had a quality of litheness, elusiveness. They proceeded by indirection rather than direction to achieve their goals. They were like cats rather than Soviet tanks. Very refreshing change of perspective.
There are, of course, lots and lots of exceptions to these vast generalizations. The entire French school, for example, as well as the German and Viennese schools. I accept that. But I like to think that it's kind of fun to look back and see how the performance of music has changed over the years.
TD
An entertaining post, Tom. Your description of Horowitz's playing
reminds me of the emails I get from the Republican National Committee -
so twisted they squeak. So twisted that Truth must tiptoe out of the
room you are posting from (she owns no barn boots).
I didn't really "describe" Horowitz's playing, Bob, so much as that of those who tried to imitate him.

Horowitz was the anti-Rubinstein. Where Rubinstein seduced you with sane, lovely, beautifully paced music-making, Horowitz wowed you with his super-fast octaves, those clangorous bass notes, and the coy musical spit-curls only he (and Cherkassky!) could conjure up out of his highly prepared piano.

It was the imitators who went awry.

TD
Dana John Hill
2014-02-21 20:42:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
I am glad you got Perahia's Goldbergs. Mine is surely a minority
opinion, but I love his recording, and have gone so far as to give
copies to friends and family.

As for the WTC Book I, the piano recording that I like best is by Edward
Aldwell on Nonesuch. I find it entirely delightful. He's not mechanical
in his rhythmic impulse, but he certainly doesn't push and pull this way
and that as too many pianists do. His playing feels, to me, as natural
as breathing. I am sure a lot of careful thought went into these
interpretations, but I never felt as though the music was tripping over
the scholarship that informed its performance.

Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida
kirkmc
2014-02-21 22:32:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dana John Hill
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
I am glad you got Perahia's Goldbergs. Mine is surely a minority
opinion, but I love his recording, and have gone so far as to give
copies to friends and family.
As for the WTC Book I, the piano recording that I like best is by Edward
Aldwell on Nonesuch. I find it entirely delightful. He's not mechanical
in his rhythmic impulse, but he certainly doesn't push and pull this way
and that as too many pianists do. His playing feels, to me, as natural
as breathing. I am sure a lot of careful thought went into these
interpretations, but I never felt as though the music was tripping over
the scholarship that informed its performance.
Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida
I like the Perahia recording very much; it's one of my favorites on piano. I also like Schiff a lot. I'm seeing him perform the Goldbergs in April; I didn't know he was still touring with them, but he's doing a concert in Birmingham (UK).

Kirk
Bob Harper
2014-02-22 02:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dana John Hill
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more
depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a
long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I
have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It
was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially
Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed
interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of
Richters WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's
maybe cause I generally like what Richter does and is totally
subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
I am glad you got Perahia's Goldbergs. Mine is surely a minority
opinion, but I love his recording, and have gone so far as to give
copies to friends and family.
A minority, perhaps, but one I'm happy to join. A great performance.

Bob Harper
Post by Dana John Hill
(snip)
Terry
2014-02-22 00:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth after
sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time - now I'm up
to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the following
suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first try to get
used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart
but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters
WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I
generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
Have you thought of hearing in on the instrument for which Bach
composed it?
William Sommerwerck
2014-02-22 01:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry
Have you thought of hearing in on the instrument
for which Bach composed it?
The clavichord?
td
2014-02-22 02:05:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Terry
Have you thought of hearing in on the instrument
for which Bach composed it?
The clavichord?
Well, actually, no, Bill. No clavichord could be used for the Goldbergs. They need a two keyboard instrument, i.e. a double manual harpsichord, at the very least. Even on the piano they have to be fairly rewritten in order to allow the two hands to do on one keyboard what they should properly be doing on two.

TD
William Sommerwerck
2014-02-22 03:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Terry
Have you thought of hearing in on the instrument
for which Bach composed it?
The clavichord?
Well, actually, no, Bill. No clavichord could be used for the Goldbergs.
They need a two keyboard instrument, i.e. a double manual harpsichord,
at the very least. Even on the piano they have to be fairly rewritten
in order to allow the two hands to do on one keyboard what they should
properly be doing on two.
That might explain why Lionel Rogg was playing it on two manuals...
Lionel Tacchini
2014-02-22 05:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Terry
Have you thought of hearing in on the instrument
for which Bach composed it?
The clavichord?
Well, actually, no, Bill. No clavichord could be used for the
Goldbergs. They need a two keyboard instrument, i.e. a double manual
harpsichord, at the very least. Even on the piano they have to be
fairly rewritten in order to allow the two hands to do on one
keyboard what they should properly be doing on two.
Clavichords are great, they can be stacked.
--
Lionel Tacchini
Mandryka
2014-02-22 07:20:35 UTC
Permalink
We know that organists used to practise on clavichords by stacking them. Also two manual clavichords existed. There's one made by François Etienne Blanchet in 1733 at the Château de Thoiry.

I have two recordings on clavichord, one by Jaroslav Tüma and one by Michael Tsalka.

I wonder what the Bachians think - is clavichord the way to go with this music?
William Sommerwerck
2014-02-22 11:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mandryka
I wonder what the Bachians think - is clavichord
the way to go with this music?
It's potentially more-expressive than the harpsichord.
Mandryka
2014-02-22 16:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Mandryka
I wonder what the Bachians think - is clavichord
the way to go with this music?
It's potentially more-expressive than the harpsichord.
The clavichord is more expressive from the point of view of timbre and dynamics. The harpsichord is more resonant and more transparent. And the harpsichord offers ample possibilities for expressive playing through agogics, voicing and ornamentation.
td
2014-02-22 16:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mandryka
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Mandryka
I wonder what the Bachians think - is clavichord
the way to go with this music?
It's potentially more-expressive than the harpsichord.
The clavichord is more expressive from the point of view of timbre and dynamics. The harpsichord is more resonant and more transparent. And the harpsichord offers ample possibilities for expressive playing through agogics, voicing and ornamentation.
But it is simply not possible to perform the Goldbergs on a clavichord.

TD
Mandryka
2014-02-22 16:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Post by Mandryka
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Mandryka
I wonder what the Bachians think - is clavichord
the way to go with this music?
It's potentially more-expressive than the harpsichord.
The clavichord is more expressive from the point of view of timbre and dynamics. The harpsichord is more resonant and more transparent. And the harpsichord offers ample possibilities for expressive playing through agogics, voicing and ornamentation.
But it is simply not possible to perform the Goldbergs on a clavichord.
TD
Correct. But (I think) you can perform them on TWO clavichords, one on top of the other. That's what Jaroslav Tuma does, as far as I understand it.
Terry
2014-02-22 07:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Terry
Have you thought of hearing in on the instrument
for which Bach composed it?
The clavichord?
Yeah, right... the double-manual clavichord. Let me know if you find
one.
Mandryka
2014-02-22 08:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Terry
Have you thought of hearing in on the instrument
for which Bach composed it?
The clavichord?
Yeah, right... the double-manual clavichord. Let me know if you find
one.
We know that organists used to practise on clavichords by stacking them.

I have two recordings on clavichord, one by Jaroslav Tüma and one by Michael Tsalka.

I wonder what the Bachians think - is clavichord the way to go with this music?
Mandryka
2014-02-22 08:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Are the Goldbergs playable on a pedal clavichord? Like the one that Kenneth Gilbert recorded some Bach preludes on.
ViveOistrach
2014-02-22 05:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for all the suggestions! I will definitely check them out. Yes I also found Gould not completely satisfactory after a long break of not listening to it - I had them better in my memory, it's (1955) also a bit fast for me. And the new one too slow ...

I find it hard to find harpsichord recordings which are really satisfying - for example I love the chromatic fantasy and fugue, and lately when I wanted to show it to a friend in a harpsichord version, I scanned through some of them, but somehow couldn't really find something which had a lot to offer. I guess I just need to put more effort into it. In general I like the sound, but I guess it's immanently harder for the performers to make it as interesting as with the piano so they often leave me disappointed. Any particular recommendations other than Virginia Black?


Thanks again!
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
Mandryka
2014-02-22 07:26:23 UTC
Permalink
For the chromatic fantasy and fugue, try Jan-Pieter Belder, Kenneth Gilbert, Pierre Hantaï, Gustav Leonhardt. It seems to be very idiomatic on harpsichord because of the fast fast arpeggios.
Lionel Tacchini
2014-02-22 09:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by ViveOistrach
Yes I also found Gould not completely satisfactory after a long break
of not listening to it - I had them better in my memory
And that's the way it will always be. Every performance is a
confrontation with what crystallises as one's personal perception of a
particular work and expectations.
I have long given up finding "completely satisfying" performances of
Bruckner symphonies and my old holy cows have lost some of their aura.
My enjoyment of the music, however, has remained and I occasionally find
myself enthusiastic about some peculiar interpretation, if only for the
questions it raises.
--
Lionel Tacchini - listening to Andreas Staier now
Alex Brown
2014-02-22 11:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lionel Tacchini
I have long given up finding "completely satisfying" performances of
Bruckner symphonies
Talking of which, have you heard Venzago's recording of No 9 yet?
Lionel Tacchini
2014-02-22 16:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Brown
Post by Lionel Tacchini
I have long given up finding "completely satisfying" performances of
Bruckner symphonies
Talking of which, have you heard Venzago's recording of No 9 yet?
Yes, it starts very well and gets irritating soon, giving the impression
the conductor is being original on purpose, fiddling around with tempo
in a way which does not make sense.

The idea of speeding up the 3rd theme of the 1st movement is one worth
trying by curiosity but I think it doesn't work this way and there is a
lot more of this in the performance which is very micro-managed and ends
up just being mannered.
I like the transparency of the orchestra, for what it's worth, and there
is palpable tension throughout, making this well worth hearing.
I just wish the forced originality were a little better inspired. He did
have to find something "interesting" to do with the coda of the 1st
movement and, well it's not all that thrilling.

Good tempo in the Scherzo, people seem to understand at last that this
music is to be played fast - even though it's been known from the start,
with Löwe re-orchestrating it to make it easier to play.
No silly ideas this time. Just right, if a bit lightweight, but I think
this is what this music actually wants to be - a mendelssohnian
fantastic ghost dance.

The Adagio keeps the qualities of the preceding movements without
exhibiting the waywardness of the 1st, at least the idiosyncrasies
invented for the occasion are not disrupting the flow the same way and
can be taken as food for thought. The relatively swift tempo is fine.
All in all I would like to like it ...

It is a pity Venzago did not choose to record a Finale.
--
Lionel Tacchini
Alex Brown
2014-02-22 18:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lionel Tacchini
Post by Alex Brown
Post by Lionel Tacchini
I have long given up finding "completely satisfying" performances of
Bruckner symphonies
Talking of which, have you heard Venzago's recording of No 9 yet?
Yes, it starts very well and gets irritating soon, giving the impression
the conductor is being original on purpose, fiddling around with tempo
in a way which does not make sense.
The idea of speeding up the 3rd theme of the 1st movement is one worth
trying by curiosity but I think it doesn't work this way and there is a
lot more of this in the performance which is very micro-managed and ends
up just being mannered.
I like the transparency of the orchestra, for what it's worth, and there
is palpable tension throughout, making this well worth hearing.
I just wish the forced originality were a little better inspired. He did
have to find something "interesting" to do with the coda of the 1st
movement and, well it's not all that thrilling.
Good tempo in the Scherzo, people seem to understand at last that this
music is to be played fast - even though it's been known from the start,
with Löwe re-orchestrating it to make it easier to play.
No silly ideas this time. Just right, if a bit lightweight, but I think
this is what this music actually wants to be - a mendelssohnian
fantastic ghost dance.
The Adagio keeps the qualities of the preceding movements without
exhibiting the waywardness of the 1st, at least the idiosyncrasies
invented for the occasion are not disrupting the flow the same way and
can be taken as food for thought. The relatively swift tempo is fine.
All in all I would like to like it ...
It is a pity Venzago did not choose to record a Finale.
Thanks for that analysis Lionel. I've listened to it a couple of time
and still feel rather baffled, but my sense of it is close to yours: the
1st movement becomes progressively less convincing. The textures are
interesting though - like it's illuminated from within by the winds.

"Would like to like it" is a nice way to put it. But maybe deep down I
feel that about Bruckner 9 itself.

Only the 5th and 8th to go for this set to be complete (unless he's
doing 00). These should be ... interesting ... too!
Lionel Tacchini
2014-02-22 18:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Brown
Thanks for that analysis Lionel. I've listened to it a couple of time
and still feel rather baffled, but my sense of it is close to yours: the
1st movement becomes progressively less convincing. The textures are
interesting though - like it's illuminated from within by the winds.
"Would like to like it" is a nice way to put it. But maybe deep down I
feel that about Bruckner 9 itself.
Only the 5th and 8th to go for this set to be complete (unless he's
doing 00). These should be ... interesting ... too!
The 5th might have quite crazy tempi in the Finale (as I was told by
people who witnessed rehearsals). I liked his 6th a lot, this is
probably the most satisfying of the cycle so far, truly exceptional.

Another Brucknerian to look forward to is Bertrand de Billy, who also
conducted an interesting 6th a few weeks ago.
--
Lionel Tacchini
Bob Harper
2014-02-22 22:07:57 UTC
Permalink
(snip(
"Would like to like it" is a nice way to put it. But maybe deep down I
feel that about Bruckner 9 itself.
Really? That boggles my mind.

Bob Harper
Alex Brown
2014-02-23 11:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
(snip(
"Would like to like it" is a nice way to put it. But maybe deep down I
feel that about Bruckner 9 itself.
Really? That boggles my mind.
Bob Harper
Yes - "like" just isn't the word; it's so unsettled/unsettling, this
symphony.
Bob Harper
2014-02-23 23:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Brown
Post by Bob Harper
(snip(
"Would like to like it" is a nice way to put it. But maybe deep down I
feel that about Bruckner 9 itself.
Really? That boggles my mind.
Bob Harper
Yes - "like" just isn't the word; it's so unsettled/unsettling, this
symphony.
I guess I understand what you're saying, though I'd have thought the end
of the third movement a great 'settling', even a benediction (unlike
Lionel, I have no desire to hear the fourth movement pastiche again
except as a curiosity).

Bob Harper
td
2014-02-24 11:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Alex Brown
Post by Bob Harper
(snip(
"Would like to like it" is a nice way to put it. But maybe deep down I
feel that about Bruckner 9 itself.
Really? That boggles my mind.
Bob Harper
Yes - "like" just isn't the word; it's so unsettled/unsettling, this
symphony.
I guess I understand what you're saying, though I'd have thought the end
of the third movement a great 'settling', even a benediction (unlike
Lionel, I have no desire to hear the fourth movement pastiche again
except as a curiosity).
Why are your posts showing up on Google Groups on the Goldbergs thread?

A glitch?

TD
Bob Harper
2014-02-24 15:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Alex Brown
Post by Bob Harper
(snip(
"Would like to like it" is a nice way to put it. But maybe deep down I
feel that about Bruckner 9 itself.
Really? That boggles my mind.
Bob Harper
Yes - "like" just isn't the word; it's so unsettled/unsettling, this
symphony.
I guess I understand what you're saying, though I'd have thought the end
of the third movement a great 'settling', even a benediction (unlike
Lionel, I have no desire to hear the fourth movement pastiche again
except as a curiosity).
Why are your posts showing up on Google Groups on the Goldbergs thread?
A glitch?
TD
Didn't know they were, and have no idea, but yours is the likeliest
explanation.

Bob Harper
Sol L. Siegel
2014-02-24 03:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Brown
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Alex Brown
"Would like to like it" is a nice way to put it. But maybe deep down I
feel that about Bruckner 9 itself.
Really? That boggles my mind.
Yes - "like" just isn't the word; it's so unsettled/unsettling, this
symphony.
Which is as it should be, at least for what Bruckner finished.
Resolution was to come in the finale, and he couldn't get it
done. The material we have seems quite uneven, so we'll
never really know.

After a performance of the Shostakovich 4th a few years ago, one
skeptic asked me if I had enjoyed it. I don't recall my response.
What I *should* have said is that it's something you experience,
rather than something you enjoy. Same with Bruckner 9 - either
it's an experience, or it's not much of anything.

- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Lionel Tacchini
2014-02-24 05:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sol L. Siegel
Post by Alex Brown
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Alex Brown
"Would like to like it" is a nice way to put it. But maybe deep down I
feel that about Bruckner 9 itself.
Really? That boggles my mind.
Yes - "like" just isn't the word; it's so unsettled/unsettling, this
symphony.
Which is as it should be, at least for what Bruckner finished.
Resolution was to come in the finale, and he couldn't get it
done. The material we have seems quite uneven, so we'll
never really know.
After a performance of the Shostakovich 4th a few years ago, one
skeptic asked me if I had enjoyed it. I don't recall my response.
What I *should* have said is that it's something you experience,
rather than something you enjoy. Same with Bruckner 9 - either
it's an experience, or it's not much of anything.
Quite right. I like Beethoven's Septet op. 20, which I happened to hear
yesterday. This is thoroughly enjoyable music. For Bruckner symphonies,
another way of expressing appreciation is needed.
--
Lionel Tacchini
td
2014-02-24 11:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sol L. Siegel
Post by Alex Brown
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Alex Brown
"Would like to like it" is a nice way to put it. But maybe deep down I
feel that about Bruckner 9 itself.
Really? That boggles my mind.
Yes - "like" just isn't the word; it's so unsettled/unsettling, this
symphony.
Which is as it should be, at least for what Bruckner finished.
Resolution was to come in the finale, and he couldn't get it
done. The material we have seems quite uneven, so we'll
never really know.
After a performance of the Shostakovich 4th a few years ago, one
skeptic asked me if I had enjoyed it. I don't recall my response.
What I *should* have said is that it's something you experience,
rather than something you enjoy. Same with Bruckner 9 - either
it's an experience, or it's not much of anything.
Why is this post showing up on the Goldbergs thread on Google Groups?

TD
Sol L. Siegel
2014-02-24 12:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Why is this post showing up on the Goldbergs thread on Google Groups?
On my reader, "Venzago's Bruckner 9th" is a sub-thread to the original
Goldbergs thread. Someone posted a reply that changed the subject and
gave it a new name. But apparently Google still considers it the same
thread.

- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
td
2014-02-24 12:22:12 UTC
Permalink
What a silly thing todo. The only common element is length!

TD
Christopher Webber
2014-02-24 13:44:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
What a silly thing todo. The only common element is length!
Forgive me asking, Tom, as you've doubtless fielded the question before:
but why do you use Google Groups instead of a proper news server and
reader? You'd not have to put up with such troubles.
Lionel Tacchini
2014-02-24 15:46:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Webber
Post by td
What a silly thing todo. The only common element is length!
but why do you use Google Groups instead of a proper news server and
reader? You'd not have to put up with such troubles.
Well, trying two news readers which I would consider "proper"
(Thunderbird and MesNews), these show the same behaviour of showing
renamed subthreads under the original one, so I guess it wouldn't help.

The only reasonable alternative, I'm afraid (but not really sorry), is
to develop an interest in Bruckner.
--
Lionel Tacchini
td
2014-02-24 20:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Webber
Post by td
What a silly thing todo. The only common element is length!
but why do you use Google Groups instead of a proper news server and
reader? You'd not have to put up with such troubles.
There is nothing wrong with Google Groups.

Until, of course, some twit changes the title of a thread. From Bach to Bruckner, from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Moreover, it's free. Why should I pay for something that is free?

TD
dk
2014-02-22 07:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by ViveOistrach
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more
depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a
long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I
have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia.
It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially
Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting.
Do you guys have any other recommendations?
Feltsman.

dk
Bob Harper
2014-02-22 15:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by dk
Post by ViveOistrach
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more
depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a
long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I
have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia.
It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially
Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting.
Do you guys have any other recommendations?
Feltsman.
dk
Seconded. Try his Partitas as well.

Bob Harper
td
2014-02-22 16:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by dk
Post by ViveOistrach
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more
depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a
long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I
have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia.
It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially
Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting.
Do you guys have any other recommendations?
Feltsman.
I wonder if you have heard either Nicolas Angelich or David Jalbert.

TD
Dana John Hill
2014-02-22 16:47:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
I wonder if you have heard either Nicolas Angelich or David Jalbert.
TD
I was just organizing the other day and came across a Jalbert recording.
Shostakovich, perhaps?

Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida
Frank Lekens
2014-02-24 12:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Post by ViveOistrach
Do you guys have any other recommendations?
Feltsman.
I wonder if you have heard either Nicolas Angelich or David Jalbert.
I'd never heard of David Jalbert before. His Goldbergs, it turns out,
are on Spotify. Sound interesting, at first superficial hearing.


(Strangely, Spotify doesn't distinguish between this David Jalbert and
this pop musician, also Canadian:
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Jalbert)
--
Frank Lekens

http://fmlekens.home.xs4all.nl/
Mandryka
2014-02-24 14:36:02 UTC
Permalink
There's a discussion of two manual clavichords here, which were practice instruments for organists

http://www.vogel-scheer.de/en/scheer/clavichorde.shtml
td
2014-02-24 20:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mandryka
There's a discussion of two manual clavichords here, which were practice instruments for organists
http://www.vogel-scheer.de/en/scheer/clavichorde.shtml
Never seen one. This is surely NOT the instrument Bach had in mind.

That said, he didn't have two guitars, piano trio, organ, or dual xylophones either.

TD
O
2014-02-24 21:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Post by Mandryka
There's a discussion of two manual clavichords here, which were practice
instruments for organists
http://www.vogel-scheer.de/en/scheer/clavichorde.shtml
Never seen one. This is surely NOT the instrument Bach had in mind.
That said, he didn't have two guitars, piano trio, organ, or dual xylophones either.
Well, at least he had his trusty Moog Synthesizer.

-Owen, imagine how much pot was smoked while listening to that record.
gggg gggg
2020-08-22 06:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
https://theclassicreview.com/best-of/bach-goldberg-variations-the-best-recordings/
James Goodzeit
2020-08-25 12:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
https://theclassicreview.com/best-of/bach-goldberg-variations-the-best-recordings/
I pretty much agree with the reviews of the recordings on harpsichord, though he probably should have included Walcha for the 70s recordings and Rousset for the 90s.
Mandryka
2020-08-26 08:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Lang Lang is about to be released. The aria on Spotify sounds pretty good, the single variation prerelease sounded nasty and hard and fast to me.

As far as I’m concerned Rubsam’s performance nails this piece more than any other.
Post by James Goodzeit
Post by gggg gggg
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
https://theclassicreview.com/best-of/bach-goldberg-variations-the-best-recordings/
I pretty much agree with the reviews of the recordings on harpsichord, though he probably should have included Walcha for the 70s recordings and Rousset for the 90s.
JohnGavin
2020-08-26 14:30:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mandryka
Lang Lang is about to be released. The aria on Spotify sounds pretty good, the single variation prerelease sounded nasty and hard and fast to me.
As far as I’m concerned Rubsam’s performance nails this piece more than any other.
Post by James Goodzeit
Post by gggg gggg
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
https://theclassicreview.com/best-of/bach-goldberg-variations-the-best-recordings/
I pretty much agree with the reviews of the recordings on harpsichord, though he probably should have included Walcha for the 70s recordings and Rousset for the 90s.
Because the variation form, be they melodic or harmonic variations, need variety of colors, IMO I go with the 2 most colorful recordings I know of - Maria Tipo on EMI, and Anthony Newman on Columbia (Hard to find).
Frank Berger
2020-08-26 15:27:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnGavin
Post by Mandryka
Lang Lang is about to be released. The aria on Spotify sounds pretty good, the single variation prerelease sounded nasty and hard and fast to me.
As far as I’m concerned Rubsam’s performance nails this piece more than any other.
Post by James Goodzeit
Post by gggg gggg
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
https://theclassicreview.com/best-of/bach-goldberg-variations-the-best-recordings/
I pretty much agree with the reviews of the recordings on harpsichord, though he probably should have included Walcha for the 70s recordings and Rousset for the 90s.
Because the variation form, be they melodic or harmonic variations, need variety of colors, IMO I go with the 2 most colorful recordings I know of - Maria Tipo on EMI, and Anthony Newman on Columbia (Hard to find).
Out of print, but not hard to find at all.
James Goodzeit
2020-08-26 18:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnGavin
Post by Mandryka
Lang Lang is about to be released. The aria on Spotify sounds pretty good, the single variation prerelease sounded nasty and hard and fast to me.
As far as I’m concerned Rubsam’s performance nails this piece more than any other.
Post by James Goodzeit
Post by gggg gggg
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
https://theclassicreview.com/best-of/bach-goldberg-variations-the-best-recordings/
I pretty much agree with the reviews of the recordings on harpsichord, though he probably should have included Walcha for the 70s recordings and Rousset for the 90s.
Because the variation form, be they melodic or harmonic variations, need variety of colors, IMO I go with the 2 most colorful recordings I know of - Maria Tipo on EMI, and Anthony Newman on Columbia (Hard to find).
The Newman appears to be available: https://www.amazon.com/J-S-Bach-Variations-Anthony-Newman/dp/B01HLDYRKC/
(That cover, though....)
Frank Berger
2020-08-26 19:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Goodzeit
Post by JohnGavin
Post by Mandryka
Lang Lang is about to be released. The aria on Spotify sounds pretty good, the single variation prerelease sounded nasty and hard and fast to me.
As far as I’m concerned Rubsam’s performance nails this piece more than any other.
Post by James Goodzeit
Post by gggg gggg
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
https://theclassicreview.com/best-of/bach-goldberg-variations-the-best-recordings/
I pretty much agree with the reviews of the recordings on harpsichord, though he probably should have included Walcha for the 70s recordings and Rousset for the 90s.
Because the variation form, be they melodic or harmonic variations, need variety of colors, IMO I go with the 2 most colorful recordings I know of - Maria Tipo on EMI, and Anthony Newman on Columbia (Hard to find).
The Newman appears to be available: https://www.amazon.com/J-S-Bach-Variations-Anthony-Newman/dp/B01HLDYRKC/
(That cover, though....)
Bunch of them on E-bay also.
JohnA
2020-08-26 19:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Goodzeit
Post by JohnGavin
Post by Mandryka
Lang Lang is about to be released. The aria on Spotify sounds pretty good, the single variation prerelease sounded nasty and hard and fast to me.
As far as I’m concerned Rubsam’s performance nails this piece more than any other.
Post by James Goodzeit
Post by gggg gggg
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
https://theclassicreview.com/best-of/bach-goldberg-variations-the-best-recordings/
I pretty much agree with the reviews of the recordings on harpsichord, though he probably should have included Walcha for the 70s recordings and Rousset for the 90s.
Because the variation form, be they melodic or harmonic variations, need variety of colors, IMO I go with the 2 most colorful recordings I know of - Maria Tipo on EMI, and Anthony Newman on Columbia (Hard to find).
The Newman appears to be available: https://www.amazon.com/J-S-Bach-Variations-Anthony-Newman/dp/B01HLDYRKC/
(That cover, though....)
My copy is from Sony Classical Japan.
wkasimer
2020-08-26 21:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Goodzeit
The Newman appears to be available: https://www.amazon.com/J-S-Bach-Variations-Anthony-Newman/dp/B01HLDYRKC/
(That cover, though....)
Is this the same recording?

https://www.amazon.com/Goldberg-Variations-J-S-Bach/dp/B0000029QY
JohnA
2020-08-26 21:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by wkasimer
Post by James Goodzeit
The Newman appears to be available: https://www.amazon.com/J-S-Bach-Variations-Anthony-Newman/dp/B01HLDYRKC/
(That cover, though....)
Is this the same recording?
https://www.amazon.com/Goldberg-Variations-J-S-Bach/dp/B0000029QY
I believe the Infinity Digital recording was originally on Newport Classic.
JohnGavin
2020-08-26 23:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnA
Post by wkasimer
Post by James Goodzeit
The Newman appears to be available: https://www.amazon.com/J-S-Bach-Variations-Anthony-Newman/dp/B01HLDYRKC/
(That cover, though....)
Is this the same recording?
https://www.amazon.com/Goldberg-Variations-J-S-Bach/dp/B0000029QY
I believe the Infinity Digital recording was originally on Newport Classic.
Think of Newman’s recordings as being in 2 parts.

First is pre-1980 (roughly). In those days he recorded for Columbia and Vox.
Then post 1980 - which includes all the Newport Classics and lots of recordings on his own label.

He probably recorded the Goldbergs 4 or 5 times in total (one on piano)

I’m personally indifferent to his later work but really like his 60s and 70s recordings.
Favorites are:

Goldberg’s (Columbia)
Well Tempered Clavier Book 2 (Harpsichord, Small Organ and Clavichord) (Columbia)
Soler - 6 Concerti for 2 Keyboards (Turnabout)
Frank Berger
2020-08-26 23:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by wkasimer
Post by James Goodzeit
The Newman appears to be available: https://www.amazon.com/J-S-Bach-Variations-Anthony-Newman/dp/B01HLDYRKC/
(That cover, though....)
Is this the same recording?
https://www.amazon.com/Goldberg-Variations-J-S-Bach/dp/B0000029QY
No.

Mandryka
2020-08-26 19:13:04 UTC
Permalink
You guys are talking about Newman on piano or Newman on some sort of revival harpsichord?
JohnGavin
2020-08-26 19:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mandryka
You guys are talking about Newman on piano or Newman on some sort of revival harpsichord?
A glorious Eric Herz German double manual harpsichord with 7 pedal operated stops. Yes, I know the authentic crowd doesn’t approve.

I don’t know about other listeners, but I find the Japanese Columbia transfers to be of mediocre quality.
Mandryka
2020-08-26 21:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mandryka
You guys are talking about Newman on piano or Newman on some sort of revival harpsichord?
A glorious Eric Herz German double manual harpsichord with 7 pedal operated stops. Yes, I know the authentic crowd doesn’t approve.
I don’t know about other listeners, but I find the Japanese Columbia transfers to be of mediocre quality.
Seven stops! Spoilt for choice! I’ll stick to a Ruckers.
ljk...@aol.com
2020-08-22 13:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Among piano recordings, Feltsman certainly takes liberties (octave jumps, etc.) and some of these can be too much for me to take, but his basic approach is full of life and insights; nothing is routine. I admire the lucidity and grace of Lars Vogt's recording, but Variation 25 suddenly finds him getting rather "moon-y" at a length of 7:11, though it's not a matter of length per se but rather of a sudden onset of "Gosh, isn't this beautiful"-ness." Still, it's a recording I return to.

On harpsichord I like David Schrader, though for some reason, which may well be obvious, It's harder for me, given a basic level of competence on the part of the performer, to distinguish between harpsichord versions than it is between piano versions. With the latter, I usually feel right off whether a particular version is worthwhile or better, with the former the harpsichord-ness of the instrument (and how it's recorded) tends to swallow up interpretive issues and lead to a feeling of sameness, again only within a framework of basic competence.

LK
Post by ViveOistrach
Hi all,
I want to start exploring the Bach recordings world in a bit more depth after sticking with Goulds Goldberg, Art of Fugue etc. for a long time - now I'm up to a change. For the Goldberg Variations, I have received the following suggestions: Schiff, Tureck, Perahia. It was hard on the first try to get used to these guys, especially Tureck, after knowing Gould almost by heart but they seemed interesting. Do you guys have any other recommendations?
As a matter of personal taste I also somehow really liked some of Richters WTC a lot, although its more on the romantic side. But that's maybe cause I generally like what Richter does and is totally subjective ...
Thanks in advance!
Loading...