Discussion:
Hough on the Brahms piano concertos
(too old to reply)
Rugby
2010-08-01 14:58:08 UTC
Permalink
The 2nd as better, the 1st as greater :

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045394/brahms-no-2-is-better-but-brahms-no-1-is-greater/

A bon mot from the Schnabel/Szell recording sessions ( had not
realized theirs the first recording of the 1st Concerto ? ) :

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045515/smoldering-cigarettes-and-stubby-fingers/

My favs:

Brahms 1 : Rubinstein/Reiner ; Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell

Brahms 2 : Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ; Backhaus/Boehm 1965

Yours ?

Rugby
Bob Lombard
2010-08-01 15:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rugby
Brahms 1 : Rubinstein/Reiner ; Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 : Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ; Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
1: Rubinstein/Leinsdorf

2: Serkin/Szell

There are newer recordings at least as good, but no matter.

bl
--
Music, books, a few movies
LombardMusic
http://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA
Sol L. Siegel
2010-08-01 16:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rugby
Brahms 1 : Rubinstein/Reiner ; Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 : Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ; Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
1: Add Fleisher/Szell to the beginning of your list and
Kapell/Mitropoulos to the end - and where, where, where is that
Malcuzynski?

2: Currently - Rubinstein/Krips, Richter/Leinsdorf, Horowitz/Toscanini
(studio), Rubinstein/Ormandy, Fleisher/Szell, Barenboim/Barbirolli,
Solomon/Dobrowen.

Rubinstein/Krips is the one recording I've owned that comes closest to
"getting" all of this monumental, many-faceted work. Hearing the rest
is rather like listening to extraordinarily gifted blind men trying to
describe a magnificent elephant.

- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Rugby
2010-08-01 16:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sol L. Siegel
1: Add Fleisher/Szell to the beginning of your list and
Kapell/Mitropoulos to the end - and where, where, where is that
Malcuzynski?
Correct, I forgot to add that Kapell. And also sorry, it's Wislocki,
not Rowicki. My Polish is not good.

I certainly enjoy the Beethoven concerti set Rubinstein and Krips did,
but probably have enough good Brahms 2's already without theirs.

Rugby
The Historian
2010-08-01 16:06:15 UTC
Permalink
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045394/brahms-no...
A bon mot from the Schnabel/Szell recording sessions (  had not
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045515/smolderin...
Brahms 1 :   Rubinstein/Reiner ;  Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 :   Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ; Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
Rugby
Brahms 2: Richter/Leinsdorf, Gilels/Reiner, Rubinstein/Krips, Serkin/
Szell, Fleisher/Szell, Tomsic/Nanut, among others.

I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
Sol L. Siegel
2010-08-01 17:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
AAUURRRRR!!!, he screamed, with a distorted face, pointing toward the
dissenter with his arm totally straight in an exaggerated pose.

- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
The Historian
2010-08-01 19:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sol L. Siegel
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
AAUURRRRR!!!, he screamed, with a distorted face, pointing toward the
dissenter with his arm totally straight in an exaggerated pose.
I've tried Rubinstein/Reiner, Serkin/Szell, Gilels/Jouchum, whoever
played the Hatto recording, Schnabel/Szell, Tomsic/Nanut, Ashkenazy/
Haitink, and a couple of others I've forgotten. None of them work for
me.
The Historian
2010-08-01 19:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Historian
Post by Sol L. Siegel
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
AAUURRRRR!!!, he screamed, with a distorted face, pointing toward the
dissenter with his arm totally straight in an exaggerated pose.
I've tried Rubinstein/Reiner, Serkin/Szell, Gilels/Jouchum, whoever
played the Hatto recording, Schnabel/Szell, Tomsic/Nanut, Ashkenazy/
Haitink, and a couple of others I've forgotten. None of them work for
me.
Oh, add the piano-duo version on Naxos.
Alan Cooper
2010-08-01 23:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Historian
news:814f3503-f68a-
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
AAUURRRRR!!!, he screamed, with a distorted face, pointing
toward the dissenter with his arm totally straight in an
exaggerated pose.
I've tried Rubinstein/Reiner, Serkin/Szell, Gilels/Jouchum,
whoever played the Hatto recording, Schnabel/Szell,
Tomsic/Nanut, Ashkenazy/ Haitink, and a couple of others I've
forgotten. None of them work for me.
Two more to try: Backhaus/Boult (1932) & Graffman/Munch. Leaner, fleeter, more
energetic than any of the above (especially the bloated Gilels/Jochum). Maybe
they'll do the trick, and maybe not :-)

AC
The Historian
2010-08-02 01:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Historian
news:814f3503-f68a-
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
AAUURRRRR!!!, he screamed, with a distorted face, pointing
toward the dissenter with his arm totally straight in an
exaggerated pose.
I've tried Rubinstein/Reiner, Serkin/Szell, Gilels/Jouchum,
whoever played the Hatto recording, Schnabel/Szell,
Tomsic/Nanut, Ashkenazy/ Haitink, and a couple of others I've
forgotten. None of them work for me.
Two more to try: Backhaus/Boult (1932) & Graffman/Munch.  Leaner, fleeter, more
energetic than any of the above (especially the bloated Gilels/Jochum).  Maybe
they'll do the trick, and maybe not :-)
AC
Bloated is a good description of Gilels/Jochum for both the first and
second concertos. It's the only Brahms 2nd concerto I actively
dislike.
herman
2010-08-02 05:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Historian
Post by The Historian
news:814f3503-f68a-
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
AAUURRRRR!!!, he screamed, with a distorted face, pointing
toward the dissenter with his arm totally straight in an
exaggerated pose.
I've tried Rubinstein/Reiner, Serkin/Szell, Gilels/Jouchum,
whoever played the Hatto recording, Schnabel/Szell,
Tomsic/Nanut, Ashkenazy/ Haitink, and a couple of others I've
forgotten. None of them work for me.
Two more to try: Backhaus/Boult (1932) & Graffman/Munch.  Leaner, fleeter, more
energetic than any of the above (especially the bloated Gilels/Jochum).  Maybe
they'll do the trick, and maybe not :-)
AC
Bloated is a good description of Gilels/Jochum for both the first and
second concertos. It's the only Brahms 2nd concerto I actively
dislike.
I grew up, as a teenager, with the 2 LP box with Gilels and Jochum,
and as an adult I naturally purchased the cds. However when I listened
to the nr 2 recently I thought it was way too leisurely and hugely
conceived / engineered, indeed.

BTW I am one of those people who doesn't really like nr 1 either. I
generally don't like hot young Brahms. Live, I don't mind, but I won't
seek this cto out at home.
mandryka
2010-08-02 07:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Brahms 2 is my favourite PiCo with 4 movements.

The live Gilels/Jochum Brahms 2 on Audiophile Classics (and I think on
Tahra) is IMO better than the studio one on DG.

There's an old recording by Elly Ney with Max Fiedler which is very
good in the opening and (especially) the closing bars of the Andante
-- the most beautiful, most intense I have heard. The 1955 Ney record
with Konwitschny isn't so special.

I heard Hamelin's CD recently on the wireless -- so I only had the
chance to hear it once. I was impressed by the last movement.
Rugby
2010-08-02 02:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cooper
Two more to try: Backhaus/Boult (1932)
Yes, maybe should be on my list,too, and was until I heard the Kapell.

Rugby
Allen
2010-08-02 14:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Historian
Post by Sol L. Siegel
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
AAUURRRRR!!!, he screamed, with a distorted face, pointing toward the
dissenter with his arm totally straight in an exaggerated pose.
I've tried Rubinstein/Reiner, Serkin/Szell, Gilels/Jouchum, whoever
played the Hatto recording, Schnabel/Szell, Tomsic/Nanut, Ashkenazy/
Haitink, and a couple of others I've forgotten. None of them work for
me.
I'll throw in my thoughts on PC1, which I happen to love when played
correctly (that means the way I like it). Unfortunately, most of the
recordings approach it like it is pure romantic school. To me, it is
about as romantic as Rite of Spring, to risk re-opening an argument in
the "Brutal Rite" thread. By far the best recording of it that I have
ever heard of it is the Fleisher/Szell/Cleveland, which is almost brutal
in its opening minutes. I was very fortunate to have heard Fleisher play
it live after his recovery, and it was perhaps even stronger than the
recording. A little historic curiosity about PC2: Horowitz/Szell/NBC
Orch were performing it when it was interrupted with a news bulletin of
earth-shaking importance; the date was December 7, 1941.
Allen
Gerard
2010-08-02 15:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Allen
I'll throw in my thoughts on PC1, which I happen to love when played
correctly (that means the way I like it).
Thanks. The same here: I like it when played the way I like it ;)
Post by Allen
Unfortunately, most of the
recordings approach it like it is pure romantic school. To me, it is
about as romantic as Rite of Spring,
Here however we disagree as much as disagreeing can go.
This piece is, when played the way I like it, pure romantic, and that's how it
should be played.
O
2010-08-02 15:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by Allen
I'll throw in my thoughts on PC1, which I happen to love when played
correctly (that means the way I like it).
Thanks. The same here: I like it when played the way I like it ;)
Post by Allen
Unfortunately, most of the
recordings approach it like it is pure romantic school. To me, it is
about as romantic as Rite of Spring,
Here however we disagree as much as disagreeing can go.
This piece is, when played the way I like it, pure romantic, and that's how it
should be played.
It should be played exactly how the performer believes it should be
played. If he doesn't believe in it, then neither will I. I agree
with Allen on both the attitude and preferred performance
(Fleisher/Szell) of the 1st Concerto.

-Owen
Terry
2010-08-02 23:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by O
Post by Gerard
Post by Allen
I'll throw in my thoughts on PC1, which I happen to love when played
correctly (that means the way I like it).
Thanks. The same here: I like it when played the way I like it ;)
Post by Allen
Unfortunately, most of the
recordings approach it like it is pure romantic school. To me, it is
about as romantic as Rite of Spring,
Here however we disagree as much as disagreeing can go.
This piece is, when played the way I like it, pure romantic, and that's how it
should be played.
It should be played exactly how the performer believes it should be
played. If he doesn't believe in it, then neither will I. I agree
with Allen on both the attitude and preferred performance
(Fleisher/Szell) of the 1st Concerto.
-Owen
Incidentally, I guess most people here have heard Bernstein's introductory
speech leading to the performance of this concerto with Glenn Gould. It's
always seemed to me that there was nothing particularly extraordinary about
the performance itself. Can anyone enlighten me about what was supposed to be
so radical about it?
--
Cheers!

Terry
Matthew B. Tepper
2010-08-03 14:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry
Incidentally, I guess most people here have heard Bernstein's introductory
speech leading to the performance of this concerto with Glenn Gould. It's
always seemed to me that there was nothing particularly extraordinary about
the performance itself. Can anyone enlighten me about what was supposed to
be so radical about it?
For its time, it was very, very slow. Nowadays, it is, as you say, "nothing
particularly extraordinary."
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Terry
2010-08-03 15:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by Terry
Incidentally, I guess most people here have heard Bernstein's introductory
speech leading to the performance of this concerto with Glenn Gould. It's
always seemed to me that there was nothing particularly extraordinary about
the performance itself. Can anyone enlighten me about what was supposed to
be so radical about it?
For its time, it was very, very slow. Nowadays, it is, as you say, "nothing
particularly extraordinary."
Thanks.
--
Cheers!

Terry
wimpie
2010-08-06 09:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry
Incidentally, I guess most people here have heard Bernstein's introductory
speech leading to the performance of this concerto with Glenn Gould. It's
always seemed to me that there was nothing particularly extraordinary about
the performance itself. Can anyone enlighten me about what was supposed to
be so radical about it?
For its time, it was very, very slow.  Nowadays, it is, as you say, "nothing
particularly extraordinary."
--
Matthew B. Tepper:  WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here:http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Actually the Bernstein recording with Zimerman is even slower than the
one with Gould.....

W.

pianomaven
2010-08-03 11:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by Allen
I'll throw in my thoughts on PC1, which I happen to love when played
correctly (that means the way I like it).
Thanks. The same here: I like it when played the way I like it ;)
Post by Allen
Unfortunately, most of the
recordings approach it like it is pure romantic school. To me, it is
about as romantic as Rite of Spring,
Here however we disagree as much as disagreeing can go.
This piece is, when played the way I like it, pure romantic, and that's how it
should be played.
Correct.

Brahms was not a baroque composer. No sewing machine was he!

TD
Christopher Ingham
2010-08-03 19:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by pianomaven
Post by Gerard
Post by Allen
I'll throw in my thoughts on PC1, which I happen to love when played
correctly (that means the way I like it).
Thanks. The same here: I like it when played the way I like it ;)
Post by Allen
Unfortunately, most of the
recordings approach it like it is pure romantic school. To me, it is
about as romantic as Rite of Spring,
Here however we disagree as much as disagreeing can go.
This piece is, when played the way I like it, pure romantic, and that's how it
should be played.
Correct.
Brahms was not a baroque composer. No sewing machine was he!
Not everyone assesses Brahms the same way. Ned Rorem, one of Brahms'
detractors, has referred to the the latter's music as "hopscotch
ditties." I recall reading an extended critique by Rorem in which he
dissed Brahms for the patterning tendency – and thus the artificiality
– in much of his music, evidenced by what he describes as calculated
reverse-imaging, or mirroring of notes, within the first and latter
halves of his themes.

Christopher Ingham
graham
2010-08-03 19:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by pianomaven
Post by Gerard
Post by Allen
I'll throw in my thoughts on PC1, which I happen to love when played
correctly (that means the way I like it).
Thanks. The same here: I like it when played the way I like it ;)
Post by Allen
Unfortunately, most of the
recordings approach it like it is pure romantic school. To me, it is
about as romantic as Rite of Spring,
Here however we disagree as much as disagreeing can go.
This piece is, when played the way I like it, pure romantic, and that's how it
should be played.
Correct.
Brahms was not a baroque composer. No sewing machine was he!
Not everyone assesses Brahms the same way. Ned Rorem, one of Brahms'
detractors, has referred to the the latter's music as "hopscotch
ditties." I recall reading an extended critique by Rorem in which he
dissed Brahms for the patterning tendency – and thus the artificiality
– in much of his music, evidenced by what he describes as calculated
reverse-imaging, or mirroring of notes, within the first and latter
halves of his themes.

Christopher Ingham
-------------------------------------------------------------
Britten didn't like Brahms' music either, but then, he did like Pears'
voice.{;-)
It takes all sorts.....
Graham
Christopher Ingham
2010-08-03 20:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Ingham
Post by pianomaven
Post by Gerard
Post by Allen
I'll throw in my thoughts on PC1, which I happen to love when played
correctly (that means the way I like it).
Thanks. The same here: I like it when played the way I like it ;)
Post by Allen
Unfortunately, most of the
recordings approach it like it is pure romantic school. To me, it is
about as romantic as Rite of Spring,
Here however we disagree as much as disagreeing can go.
This piece is, when played the way I like it, pure romantic, and that's how it
should be played.
Correct.
Brahms was not a baroque composer. No sewing machine was he!
Not everyone assesses Brahms the same way. Ned Rorem, one of Brahms'
detractors, has referred to the the latter's music as "hopscotch
ditties."  I recall reading an extended critique by Rorem in which he
dissed Brahms for the patterning tendency – and thus the artificiality
– in much of his music, evidenced by what he describes as calculated
reverse-imaging, or mirroring of notes, within the first and latter
halves of his themes.
Christopher Ingham
-------------------------------------------------------------
Britten didn't like Brahms' music either, but then, he did like Pears'
voice.{;-)
It takes all sorts.....
It comes with the territory, too, namely, being counted as one of the
"big 3" (von Bülow's hyberbolic statement), or at least as one of the
greats. I've always noticed that those among the sizeable minority who
don't esteem Brahms share an almost emphatic antipathy to his music.

Christopher Ingham
Post by Christopher Ingham
Graham- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Bob Lombard
2010-08-03 20:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Ingham
Post by pianomaven
Post by Gerard
Post by Allen
I'll throw in my thoughts on PC1, which I happen to love when played
correctly (that means the way I like it).
Thanks. The same here: I like it when played the way I like it ;)
Post by Allen
Unfortunately, most of the
recordings approach it like it is pure romantic school. To me, it is
about as romantic as Rite of Spring,
Here however we disagree as much as disagreeing can go.
This piece is, when played the way I like it, pure romantic, and that's how it
should be played.
Correct.
Brahms was not a baroque composer. No sewing machine was he!
Not everyone assesses Brahms the same way. Ned Rorem, one of Brahms'
detractors, has referred to the the latter's music as "hopscotch
ditties." I recall reading an extended critique by Rorem in which he
dissed Brahms for the patterning tendency – and thus the artificiality
– in much of his music, evidenced by what he describes as calculated
reverse-imaging, or mirroring of notes, within the first and latter
halves of his themes.
Christopher Ingham
Rorem must dislike Bach's music too; lots of 'patterning' there,
inversions and reverses and all that stuff. So there go at least 2 of
the 3 'B's.

bl
--
Music, books, a few movies
LombardMusic
http://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA
Christopher Ingham
2010-08-03 20:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by Christopher Ingham
Post by pianomaven
Post by Gerard
Post by Allen
I'll throw in my thoughts on PC1, which I happen to love when played
correctly (that means the way I like it).
Thanks. The same here: I like it when played the way I like it ;)
Post by Allen
Unfortunately, most of the
recordings approach it like it is pure romantic school. To me, it is
about as romantic as Rite of Spring,
Here however we disagree as much as disagreeing can go.
This piece is, when played the way I like it, pure romantic, and that's how it
should be played.
Correct.
Brahms was not a baroque composer. No sewing machine was he!
Not everyone assesses Brahms the same way. Ned Rorem, one of Brahms'
detractors, has referred to the the latter's music as "hopscotch
ditties."  I recall reading an extended critique by Rorem in which he
dissed Brahms for the patterning tendency – and thus the artificiality
– in much of his music, evidenced by what he describes as calculated
reverse-imaging, or mirroring of notes, within the first and latter
halves of his themes.
Christopher Ingham
Rorem must dislike Bach's music too; lots of 'patterning' there,
inversions and reverses and all that stuff. So there go at least 2 of
the 3 'B's.
I'm not aware that he's an admirer of Beethoven, either.

Christopher Ingham
Post by Bob Lombard
bl
--
Music, books, a few movies
LombardMusichttp://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Rugby
2010-08-03 21:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Ingham
Post by Bob Lombard
Rorem must dislike Bach's music too; lots of 'patterning' there,
inversions and reverses and all that stuff. So there go at least 2 of
the 3 'B's.
I'm not aware that he's an admirer of Beethoven, either.
Rorem should recall the caveat about keeping to oneself opinions that
might make one appear ignorant, rather than opening one's mouth
removing all doubt.

Rugby
Christopher Ingham
2010-08-03 22:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Ingham
Post by Bob Lombard
Rorem must dislike Bach's music too; lots of 'patterning' there,
inversions and reverses and all that stuff. So there go at least 2 of
the 3 'B's.
I'm not aware that he's an admirer of Beethoven, either.
Rorem  should recall the caveat about keeping to oneself opinions that
might make one appear ignorant, rather than opening one's mouth
removing all doubt.
Or he should at least refrain from arguing from the fallacious notion
that through objective analysis of something which one experiences
subjectively one can somehow prove that that something should or
shouldn't be liked.

Christopher Ingham
Ricky Jimenez
2010-08-03 23:38:46 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:39:36 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham
Post by Christopher Ingham
Rorem  should recall the caveat about keeping to oneself opinions that
might make one appear ignorant, rather than opening one's mouth
removing all doubt.
Or he should at least refrain from arguing from the fallacious notion
that through objective analysis of something which one experiences
subjectively one can somehow prove that that something should or
shouldn't be liked.
Christopher Ingham
I have thought that there are objective criteria for ranking artistic
works in order of quality but nobody has discovered them yet. Now
prove me wrong. :-)
Christopher Ingham
2010-08-03 23:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Jimenez
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:39:36 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham
Post by Christopher Ingham
Rorem  should recall the caveat about keeping to oneself opinions that
might make one appear ignorant, rather than opening one's mouth
removing all doubt.
Or he should at least refrain from arguing from the fallacious notion
that through objective analysis of something which one experiences
subjectively one can somehow prove that that something should or
shouldn't be liked.
Christopher Ingham
I have thought that there are objective criteria for ranking artistic
works in order of quality but nobody has discovered them yet.  Now
prove me wrong.  :-)
The subject's a minefield.

Christopher Ingham
Rugby
2010-08-04 00:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Jimenez
I have thought that there are objective criteria for ranking artistic
works in order of quality but nobody has discovered them yet.  Now
prove me wrong.  :-)
" ... but nobody has discovered them yet." QED.

Rugby
Oscar Williamson
2010-08-03 14:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Brahms 1 first movement one of my favorites, a masterpiece, as Mr.
Lombard correctly stated.

Fleisher/Szell
Freire/Chailly
Zimerman/Bernstein

...off the top of my head.
Rugby
2010-08-01 19:11:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
Please listen again, after reading Dante.

Rugby
The Historian
2010-08-01 19:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rugby
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
Please listen again, after reading Dante.
Rugby
I've read Dante. Which circle of Hell is this abortive and aborted
symphony played in?
Gerard
2010-08-01 21:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rugby
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
Please listen again, after reading Dante.
Rugby
Don't you know a beer-equivalent?
Rugby
2010-08-01 21:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Don't you know a beer-equivalent?
Off the top of my head, perhaps either the "Double Trouble" IPA from
Founder's Brewery in Michigan, USA ; or the dunklebrau at the
HofbrauHaus in Munich.

Rugby
Ricky Jimenez
2010-08-01 21:36:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 09:06:15 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
What don't you like about it? Actually many books on music, written
before say 1950, made negative comments about this concerto. It would
be very PI to say such things now.
Bob Lombard
2010-08-01 22:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Jimenez
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 09:06:15 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
What don't you like about it? Actually many books on music, written
before say 1950, made negative comments about this concerto. It would
be very PI to say such things now.
The first movement is a masterpiece. The mental/emotional transition
to the second movement is apparently difficult for the pianist to
negotiate; if (s)he fails there, the finale doesn't work either.

It can work; the evidence exists.

bl
--
Music, books, a few movies
LombardMusic
http://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA
Sol L. Siegel
2010-08-01 22:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
The first movement is a masterpiece. The mental/emotional transition
to the second movement is apparently difficult for the pianist to
negotiate; if (s)he fails there, the finale doesn't work either.
As in the much-praised Curzzzzzzzzon/Szell recording.

- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Alan Cooper
2010-08-01 23:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sol L. Siegel
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
The first movement is a masterpiece. The mental/emotional
transition to the second movement is apparently difficult for
the pianist to negotiate; if (s)he fails there, the finale
doesn't work either.
As in the much-praised Curzzzzzzzzon/Szell recording.
Ah, but the wonderfully conducted Curzon/Van Beinum is worth hearing despite the
pianist's evident shortcomings. Be sure to read the hilarious Gramphone review,
which alleges, "Van Beinum is inspired by the soloist." Precisely the opposite of
the case--as if Van Beinum had to be "inspired" by anyone to excel in Brahms!

AC
JohnGavin
2010-08-02 13:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cooper
Post by Sol L. Siegel
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
The first movement is a masterpiece. The mental/emotional
transition to the second movement is apparently difficult for
the pianist to negotiate; if (s)he fails there, the finale
doesn't work either.
As in the much-praised Curzzzzzzzzon/Szell recording.
Ah, but the wonderfully conducted Curzon/Van Beinum is worth hearing despite the
pianist's evident shortcomings.  Be sure to read the hilarious Gramphone review,
which alleges, "Van Beinum is inspired by the soloist."  Precisely the opposite of
the case--as if Van Beinum had to be "inspired" by anyone to excel in Brahms!
AC
A closer listen to one of the ZImermans is warranted. I've never been
able to warm to #1, yet appreciation of #2 comes so naturally.
Curious. Hough's article is very interesting and informative (I read
his blog regularly).
pianomaven
2010-08-03 11:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cooper
Post by Sol L. Siegel
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
The first movement is a masterpiece. The mental/emotional
transition to the second movement is apparently difficult for
the pianist to negotiate; if (s)he fails there, the finale
doesn't work either.
As in the much-praised Curzzzzzzzzon/Szell recording.
Ah, but the wonderfully conducted Curzon/Van Beinum is worth hearing despite the
pianist's evident shortcomings.  Be sure to read the hilarious Gramphone review,
which alleges, "Van Beinum is inspired by the soloist."  Precisely the opposite of
the case--as if Van Beinum had to be "inspired" by anyone to excel in Brahms!
AC
A closer listen to one of the ZImermans is warranted.  I've never been
able to warm to #1, yet appreciation of #2 comes so naturally.
Curious.  Hough's article is very interesting and informative (I read
his blog regularly).
Is his blog more interesting than his pianism?

TD
Gerard
2010-08-02 13:12:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sol L. Siegel
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
The first movement is a masterpiece. The mental/emotional transition
to the second movement is apparently difficult for the pianist to
negotiate; if (s)he fails there, the finale doesn't work either.
As in the much-praised Curzzzzzzzzon/Szell recording.
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
What exactly does not work in that recording?
Sol L. Siegel
2010-08-03 02:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by Sol L. Siegel
As in the much-praised Curzzzzzzzzon/Szell recording.
What exactly does not work in that recording?
After several tries, I still find the slow movement interminable rather
than moving.

- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Gerard
2010-08-03 14:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sol L. Siegel
Post by Gerard
Post by Sol L. Siegel
As in the much-praised Curzzzzzzzzon/Szell recording.
What exactly does not work in that recording?
After several tries, I still find the slow movement interminable
rather than moving.
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
I will have some tries in the near future too.
(I remember this recording as being a favorite, specially because the
contribution by Szell.)
Gerard
2010-08-05 07:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by Sol L. Siegel
Post by Gerard
Post by Sol L. Siegel
As in the much-praised Curzzzzzzzzon/Szell recording.
What exactly does not work in that recording?
After several tries, I still find the slow movement interminable
rather than moving.
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
I will have some tries in the near future too.
(I remember this recording as being a favorite, specially because the
contribution by Szell.)
I tried a few recordings.
Curzon is indeed a little slower than others (around 1 minute). But even the
fastest of them did not give me the impression of playing faster, or more
moving. (However, I did not listen to Rubinstein/Reiner yet.)
The Historian
2010-08-01 22:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Jimenez
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 09:06:15 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
What don't you like about it?  Actually many books on music, written
before say 1950, made negative comments about this concerto.  It would
be very PI to say such things now.
Mr. Lombard hit on part of it. As for other reasons, sometimes you
simply don't like a work, despite what everyone else thinks.
Ricky Jimenez
2010-08-01 23:13:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 15:55:11 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
Post by The Historian
Post by Ricky Jimenez
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 09:06:15 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
Post by The Historian
I've never liked the Brahms 1st concerto.
What don't you like about it?  Actually many books on music, written
before say 1950, made negative comments about this concerto.  It would
be very PI to say such things now.
Mr. Lombard hit on part of it. As for other reasons, sometimes you
simply don't like a work, despite what everyone else thinks.
If you have kept or inherited old books on music. Here are some with
(sometimes very) negative comments on the Brahms d minor concerto:

Brockway and Weinstock - Men of Music
Robert Haven Schauffler - The Unknown Brahms
Percy Scholes - Oxford Companion to Music, First Edition
Christopher Ingham
2010-08-01 18:12:59 UTC
Permalink
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045394/brahms-no...
A bon mot from the Schnabel/Szell recording sessions (  had not
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045515/smolderin...
Brahms 1 :   Rubinstein/Reiner ;  Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 :   Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ; Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
PC #1 – Rubinstein/Reiner, Weissenberg/Muti

PC #2 – Richter/Leinsdorf, Gilels/Reiner, Serkin/Szell, Pollini/Abbado

Christopher Ingham
pianomaven
2010-08-01 21:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Ingham
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045394/brahms-no...
A bon mot from the Schnabel/Szell recording sessions (  had not
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045515/smolderin...
Brahms 1 :   Rubinstein/Reiner ;  Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 :   Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ; Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
PC #1 – Rubinstein/Reiner, Weissenberg/Muti
PC #2 – Richter/Leinsdorf, Gilels/Reiner, Serkin/Szell, Pollini/Abbado
Any list of wonderful Brahms 1 without Arrau/Giulini isn't worth the
powder to blow it to Hell, assuming, of course, that Hell exists.

TD
Bob Lombard
2010-08-01 21:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by pianomaven
Post by Christopher Ingham
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045394/brahms-no...
A bon mot from the Schnabel/Szell recording sessions ( had not
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045515/smolderin...
Brahms 1 : Rubinstein/Reiner ; Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 : Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ; Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
PC #1 – Rubinstein/Reiner, Weissenberg/Muti
PC #2 – Richter/Leinsdorf, Gilels/Reiner, Serkin/Szell, Pollini/Abbado
Any list of wonderful Brahms 1 without Arrau/Giulini isn't worth the
powder to blow it to Hell, assuming, of course, that Hell exists.
TD
Hell is a personal thing.

bl
--
Music, books, a few movies
LombardMusic
http://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA
Gerard
2010-08-02 13:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by pianomaven
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045394/brahms-no...
A bon mot from the Schnabel/Szell recording sessions ( had not
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045515/smolderin...
Brahms 1 : Rubinstein/Reiner ; Malcuzynski/Rowicki ;
Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 : Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ;
Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
PC #1 – Rubinstein/Reiner, Weissenberg/Muti
PC #2 – Richter/Leinsdorf, Gilels/Reiner, Serkin/Szell,
Pollini/Abbado
Any list of wonderful Brahms 1 without Arrau/Giulini isn't worth the
powder to blow it to Hell, assuming, of course, that Hell exists.
TD
Hell is a personal thing.
bl
Do you have an experience with it?
Bob Lombard
2010-08-02 13:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by pianomaven
Post by Christopher Ingham
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045394/brahms-no...
A bon mot from the Schnabel/Szell recording sessions ( had not
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045515/smolderin...
Brahms 1 : Rubinstein/Reiner ; Malcuzynski/Rowicki ;
Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 : Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ;
Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
PC #1 – Rubinstein/Reiner, Weissenberg/Muti
PC #2 – Richter/Leinsdorf, Gilels/Reiner, Serkin/Szell,
Pollini/Abbado
Any list of wonderful Brahms 1 without Arrau/Giulini isn't worth the
powder to blow it to Hell, assuming, of course, that Hell exists.
TD
Hell is a personal thing.
bl
Do you have an experience with it?
If you haven't, life has been very good to you. No loved ones died? No
big mistakes made? Never been jilted? Yep, you've been lucky.

bl
--
Music, books, a few movies
LombardMusic
http://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA
Gerard
2010-08-02 13:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by Gerard
Post by Bob Lombard
On Aug 1, 2:12 pm, Christopher
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045394/brahms-no...
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by Gerard
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by Rugby
A bon mot from the Schnabel/Szell recording sessions ( had
not realized theirs the first recording of the 1st Concerto
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045515/smolderin...
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by Gerard
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by Rugby
Brahms 1 : Rubinstein/Reiner ; Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 : Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ;
Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
PC #1 – Rubinstein/Reiner, Weissenberg/Muti
PC #2 – Richter/Leinsdorf, Gilels/Reiner, Serkin/Szell,
Pollini/Abbado
Any list of wonderful Brahms 1 without Arrau/Giulini isn't
worth the powder to blow it to Hell, assuming, of course, that
Hell exists.
TD
Hell is a personal thing.
bl
Do you have an experience with it?
If you haven't, life has been very good to you. No loved ones died? No
big mistakes made? Never been jilted? Yep, you've been lucky.
bl
Doesn't answer the question.
It's just a suggestion of what you see as hell.
Personal questions directed at me about loved ones who died are far from
relevant.
David Oberman
2010-08-02 00:02:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 14:21:55 -0700 (PDT), pianomaven
Post by pianomaven
Any list of wonderful Brahms 1 without Arrau/Giulini isn't worth the
powder to blow it to Hell, assuming, of course, that Hell exists.
Arrau & Giulini couldn't play their way out of a paper bag!
pianomaven
2010-08-02 00:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Oberman
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 14:21:55 -0700 (PDT), pianomaven
Post by pianomaven
Any list of wonderful Brahms 1 without Arrau/Giulini isn't worth the
powder to blow it to Hell, assuming, of course, that Hell exists.
Arrau & Giulini couldn't play their way out of a paper bag!
They don't have to. That is your job. Just how are you going to get it
off?

TD
David Oberman
2010-08-02 01:43:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:43:02 -0700 (PDT), pianomaven
Post by pianomaven
They don't have to. That is your job. Just how are you going to get it
off?
<shrugs>
ivanmaxim
2010-08-02 02:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Oberman
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:43:02 -0700 (PDT), pianomaven
Post by pianomaven
They don't have to. That is your job. Just how are you going to get it
off?
<shrugs>
Not to worry - thats just an example of the "reasoned' reply this old
bastard gives to those who don't agree with him. Happens all the
time. Wagner fan
uncle dave
2010-08-03 03:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Ingham
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045394/brahms-no...
A bon mot from the Schnabel/Szell recording sessions (  had not
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045515/smolderin...
Brahms 1 :   Rubinstein/Reiner ;  Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 :   Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ; Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
PC #1 – Rubinstein/Reiner, Weissenberg/Muti
PC #2 – Richter/Leinsdorf, Gilels/Reiner, Serkin/Szell, Pollini/Abbado
Christopher Ingham
Does anyone know who is the cellist in the Richter/Leinsdorf PC 2?
If it's Frank Miller I'll die because I really dislike those cello
solos. I'm confident that it's not because of recordings where I'm
sure it is him. But until I can put a name to the player, I'll always
do a little extra cringing during those solos.
Thanks,
Uncle Dave
Christopher Ingham
2010-08-03 05:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by uncle dave
Post by Christopher Ingham
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045394/brahms-no...
A bon mot from the Schnabel/Szell recording sessions (  had not
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045515/smolderin...
Brahms 1 :   Rubinstein/Reiner ;  Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 :   Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ; Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
PC #1 – Rubinstein/Reiner, Weissenberg/Muti
PC #2 – Richter/Leinsdorf, Gilels/Reiner, Serkin/Szell, Pollini/Abbado
Christopher Ingham
Does anyone know who is the cellist in the Richter/Leinsdorf PC 2?
If it's Frank Miller I'll die because I really dislike those cello
solos.  I'm confident that it's not because of recordings where I'm
sure it is him.  But until I can put a name to the player, I'll always
do a little extra cringing during those solos.
Thanks,
Uncle Dave
The cellist is Robert LaMarchina.

Christopher Ingham
- Hide quoted text -
Post by uncle dave
- Show quoted text -
Matthew B. Tepper
2010-08-01 19:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rugby
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045394/brahms-no-2-i
s-better-but-brahms-no-1-is-greater/
A bon mot from the Schnabel/Szell recording sessions ( had not
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045515/smoldering-ci
garettes-and-stubby-fingers/
Brahms 1 : Rubinstein/Reiner ; Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 : Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ; Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
1: Horowitz/Toscanini; Fleisher/Szell; Horowitz/Walter

2: Serkin/Szell (stereo); Solomon/Dobrowen; Horowitz/Toscanini 1948

Sets, if one must consider them together:

Serkin/Szell (stereo)
Ax/Levine & Haitink (partly as a keepsake, as I heard Manny play both of
these in Minneapolis)
Fleisher/Szell

Have to listen to Freire/Chailly a couple more times to see if it holds up.

As it happens, just the other day I got the BBC Legends CD of Rubinstein
with Colin Davis/BBCSO (b/w Mozart K. 488 with ECO) and have heard it only
once so far. Certainly better than Rubinstein/Mehta, but then what isn't?

And thanks for spelling out "piano concerto" rather than using some inane
abbr. like "pico" or "femto" or "atto" or "pseudo" or "quasi" or something.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
***** War is Peace **** Freedom is Slavery **** Fox is News *****
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Christopher Ingham
2010-08-01 19:47:41 UTC
Permalink
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045394/brahms-no...
s-better-but-brahms-no-1-is-greater/
A bon mot from the Schnabel/Szell recording sessions (  had not
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045515/smolderin...
garettes-and-stubby-fingers/
Brahms 1 :   Rubinstein/Reiner ;  Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 :   Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ; Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
1:  Horowitz/Toscanini; Fleisher/Szell; Horowitz/Walter
2:  Serkin/Szell (stereo); Solomon/Dobrowen; Horowitz/Toscanini 1948
Hearing my grandfather's 78rpm of the Horowitz/Toscanini for the first
time in the late 60s set me off into a several-year maniacal quest to
find 'equivalent' more recent (= stereophonic) performances, of which
there were none. To me nowadays the poor sonics (on the CD transfers)
detract too much from the enjoyment of the performance.

Christopher Ingham
Matthew B. Tepper
2010-08-01 23:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Christopher Ingham <***@comcast.net> appears to have caused the
following letters to be typed in news:587608dc-4ed8-45d2-80f4-4dae1c173708
Post by Christopher Ingham
2:  Serkin/Szell (stereo); Solomon/Dobrowen; Horowitz/Toscanini 1948
Hearing my grandfather's 78rpm of the Horowitz/Toscanini for the first
time in the late 60s set me off into a several-year maniacal quest to
find 'equivalent' more recent (= stereophonic) performances, of which
there were none. To me nowadays the poor sonics (on the CD transfers)
detract too much from the enjoyment of the performance.
Except that my preference is for a later live performance by the same team
which made the 1940 recording to which you refer.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Christopher Ingham
2010-08-01 23:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:587608dc-4ed8-45d2-80f4-4dae1c173708
Post by Christopher Ingham
2:  Serkin/Szell (stereo); Solomon/Dobrowen; Horowitz/Toscanini 1948
Hearing my grandfather's 78rpm of the Horowitz/Toscanini for the first
time in the late 60s set me off into a several-year maniacal quest to
find 'equivalent' more recent (= stereophonic) performances, of which
there were none. To me nowadays the poor sonics (on the CD transfers)
detract too much from the enjoyment of the performance.
Except that my preference is for a later live performance by the same team
which made the 1940 recording to which you refer.
You're correct. Would you know how it compares performance- and sound-
wise to the earlier recording?

Christopher Ingham
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
--
Matthew B. Tepper:  WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here:http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Matthew B. Tepper
2010-08-02 00:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Christopher Ingham <***@comcast.net> appears to have caused
the following letters to be typed in news:94f96c18-46ef-4ef1-8505-
Post by Christopher Ingham
caused the following letters to be typed in news:587608dc-4ed8-45d2-
Post by Christopher Ingham
2:  Serkin/Szell (stereo); Solomon/Dobrowen; Horowitz/Toscanini 1948
Hearing my grandfather's 78rpm of the Horowitz/Toscanini for the first
time in the late 60s set me off into a several-year maniacal quest to
find 'equivalent' more recent (= stereophonic) performances, of which
there were none. To me nowadays the poor sonics (on the CD transfers)
detract too much from the enjoyment of the performance.
Except that my preference is for a later live performance by the same
team which made the 1940 recording to which you refer.
You're correct. Would you know how it compares performance- and sound-
wise to the earlier recording?
Since I made a point of specifying it, you may assume that I prefer the
performance, particularly as it is live and the performers are fully
engaged with the audience. The sound is about a wash.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Alan Cooper
2010-08-02 13:43:46 UTC
Permalink
have caused the following letters to be typed in
news:94f96c18-46ef-4ef1-8505-
Post by Christopher Ingham
have caused the following letters to be typed in
news:587608dc-4ed8-45d2- 80f4-4dae1c173708
Post by Christopher Ingham
2:  Serkin/Szell (stereo); Solomon/Dobrowen;
Horowitz/Toscanini 1948
Hearing my grandfather's 78rpm of the Horowitz/Toscanini for
the first time in the late 60s set me off into a
several-year maniacal quest to find 'equivalent' more recent
(= stereophonic) performances, of which there were none. To
me nowadays the poor sonics (on the CD transfers) detract
too much from the enjoyment of the performance.
Except that my preference is for a later live performance by
the same team which made the 1940 recording to which you
refer.
You're correct. Would you know how it compares performance- and
sound- wise to the earlier recording?
Since I made a point of specifying it, you may assume that I
prefer the performance, particularly as it is live and the
performers are fully engaged with the audience. The sound is
about a wash.
Is that the one on Naxos? If so, I agree with Matthew. It's terrific. Another
favorite #2 of mine is Serkin/Ormandy, which I prefer to Serkin/Szell by a wide
margin.

AC
Matthew B. Tepper
2010-08-02 14:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cooper
caused the following letters to be typed in news:94f96c18-46ef-4ef1-
Post by Christopher Ingham
have caused the following letters to be typed in news:587608dc-4ed8-
Post by Christopher Ingham
2:  Serkin/Szell (stereo); Solomon/Dobrowen; Horowitz/Toscanini 1948
Hearing my grandfather's 78rpm of the Horowitz/Toscanini for the
first time in the late 60s set me off into a several-year maniacal
quest to find 'equivalent' more recent (= stereophonic)
performances, of which there were none. To me nowadays the poor
sonics (on the CD transfers) detract too much from the enjoyment of
the performance.
Except that my preference is for a later live performance by the same
team which made the 1940 recording to which you refer.
You're correct. Would you know how it compares performance- and
sound-wise to the earlier recording?
Since I made a point of specifying it, you may assume that I prefer the
performance, particularly as it is live and the performers are fully
engaged with the audience. The sound is about a wash.
Is that the one on Naxos? If so, I agree with Matthew. It's terrific.
Actually, Naxos has a live performance which preceded the 1940 recording
sessions. The 1948 has been available on Arkadia MP 454, Stradivarius STR
13595, Music & Arts 1077, and APR 6001.
Post by Alan Cooper
Another favorite #2 of mine is Serkin/Ormandy, which I prefer to
Serkin/Szell by a wide margin.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Alan Cooper
2010-08-02 16:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by Alan Cooper
Is that the one on Naxos? If so, I agree with Matthew. It's
terrific.
Actually, Naxos has a live performance which preceded the 1940
recording sessions. The 1948 has been available on Arkadia MP
454, Stradivarius STR 13595, Music & Arts 1077, and APR 6001.
Thanks. Where does the Naxos stand in your estimation?

AC
pianomaven
2010-08-03 11:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Is that the one on Naxos?  If so, I agree with Matthew.  It's
terrific.
Actually, Naxos has a live performance which preceded the 1940
recording sessions.  The 1948 has been available on Arkadia MP
454, Stradivarius STR 13595, Music & Arts 1077, and APR 6001.
Thanks.  Where does the Naxos stand in your estimation?
It's just a possession entry on his computer.

TD
pianomaven
2010-08-03 11:05:57 UTC
Permalink
have caused the following letters to be typed in
news:94f96c18-46ef-4ef1-8505-
Post by Christopher Ingham
have caused the following letters to be typed in
news:587608dc-4ed8-45d2- 80f4-4dae1c173708
Post by Christopher Ingham
2:  Serkin/Szell (stereo); Solomon/Dobrowen;
Horowitz/Toscanini 1948
Hearing my grandfather's 78rpm of the Horowitz/Toscanini for
the first time in the late 60s set me off into a
several-year maniacal quest to find 'equivalent' more recent
(= stereophonic) performances, of which there were none. To
me nowadays the poor sonics (on the CD transfers) detract
too much from the enjoyment of the performance.
Except that my preference is for a later live performance by
the same team which made the 1940 recording to which you
refer.
You're correct. Would you know how it compares performance- and
sound- wise to the earlier recording?
Since I made a point of specifying it, you may assume that I
prefer the performance, particularly as it is live and the
performers are fully engaged with the audience.  The sound is
about a wash.
Is that the one on Naxos?  If so, I agree with Matthew.  It's terrific.  Another
favorite #2 of mine is Serkin/Ormandy, which I prefer to Serkin/Szell by a wide
margin.
Agreed.

Szell was no Brahmsian. Too fast. Too clipped. Too clean. Too light.
Really, completely unsuited to this music. His reputation is vastly
inflated, in my opinion.


TD
David Oberman
2010-08-03 14:33:59 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:05:57 -0700 (PDT), pianomaven
Post by pianomaven
Szell was no Brahmsian. Too fast. Too clipped. Too clean. Too light.
Really, completely unsuited to this music. His reputation is vastly
inflated, in my opinion.
You're full of it--hot air, that is. Szell's reputation is right where
it deserves to be.
ivanmaxim
2010-08-03 14:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Oberman
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:05:57 -0700 (PDT), pianomaven
Post by pianomaven
Szell was no Brahmsian. Too fast. Too clipped. Too clean. Too light.
Really, completely unsuited to this music. His reputation is vastly
inflated, in my opinion.
You're full of it--hot air, that is. Szell's reputation is right where
it deserves to be.
David - remember to whom you are replying. This is the same guy who
reviewed the same performance on two different labels and gave them
opposing opinions based solely on who he thought was playing, Now what
does that tell you about the value of his opnions???? Wagner fan
Peter Greenstein
2010-08-04 23:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Oberman
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:05:57 -0700 (PDT), pianomaven
Post by pianomaven
Szell was no Brahmsian. Too fast. Too clipped. Too clean. Too light.
Really, completely unsuited to this music. His reputation is vastly
inflated, in my opinion.
You're full of it--hot air, that is. Szell's reputation is right where
it deserves to be.
I'm not sure, but it is possible that Brahms himself may have disagreed with
Tom! He told Monteux that the Germans tended to make his music sound too
heavy.

However, I do happen to prefer Monteux's Brahms to Szell's.
--
Peter Greenstein
http://www.wakefieldjazz.com/
pianomaven
2010-08-01 21:20:18 UTC
Permalink
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045394/brahms-no...
s-better-but-brahms-no-1-is-greater/
A bon mot from the Schnabel/Szell recording sessions (  had not
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100045515/smolderin...
garettes-and-stubby-fingers/
Brahms 1 :   Rubinstein/Reiner ;  Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 :   Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ; Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
1:  Horowitz/Toscanini; Fleisher/Szell; Horowitz/Walter
2:  Serkin/Szell (stereo); Solomon/Dobrowen; Horowitz/Toscanini 1948
Serkin/Szell (stereo)
Ax/Levine & Haitink (partly as a keepsake, as I heard Manny play both of
these in Minneapolis)
Fleisher/Szell
Have to listen to Freire/Chailly a couple more times to see if it holds up.
As it happens, just the other day I got the BBC Legends CD of Rubinstein
with Colin Davis/BBCSO (b/w Mozart K. 488 with ECO) and have heard it only
once so far.  Certainly better than Rubinstein/Mehta, but then what isn't?
And thanks for spelling out "piano concerto" rather than using some inane
abbr. like "pico" or "femto" or "atto" or "pseudo" or "quasi" or something.
Just for little Matty.

TD
Terry
2010-08-01 23:46:03 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 00:58:08 +1000, Rugby wrote
(in article
<b979fbe3-1d6b-4823-8428-***@m35g2000prn.googlegroups.com>):

<snip>
Post by Rugby
Brahms 1 : Rubinstein/Reiner ; Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 : Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ; Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
Rugby
No. 1:
------

Claudio Arrau, Sir Bernard Haitink, Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra Amsterdam

Julius Katchen, Pierre Monteux, London Symphony Orchestra

No. 2:
------

Vladimir Ashkenazy, Bernard Haitink, Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra

Emil Gilels. Eugen Jochum, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra
--
Cheers!

Terry
Huibert Jonkers
2010-08-02 09:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Brahms 1 :   Rubinstein/Reiner ;  Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 :   Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ; Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
Rugby
1: Curzon/Szell, Serkin/Szell, Backhaus/Boult.

Fleischer may be the liveliest of the 'Szell pianists', but I slightly
prefer the tenser approach of Curzon and Serkin. The Schnabel reading
I like too, but despite a sound tolerance of faulty playing I can't
get over the fact that he botches the double octaves in i (and more).
I don't agree with the criticism that Curzon isn't playing well - he
performs the first ten minutes of the concerto better than anyone I've
heard on record. Granted, in faster passages one can hear a little
stiffness, but it's nothing to get worked up about. His live recording
with Van Beinum is also very good.

2: Fischer/Furtwangler, Solomon/Dobrowen, Schnabel/Boult, Anda/
Fricsay, Gilels/Reiner.

Fischer's may be in my top 10 of favorite recordings of anything.
Solomon's technique is quite amazing, and it's a very elegant
performance too. Like others, I'm curious about the reason for the
tempo inflation in i, which has been slowed down by about two minutes
over the past 50 years.
Rugby
2010-08-02 12:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Huibert Jonkers
Like others, I'm curious about the reason for the
tempo inflation in i, which has been slowed down by about two minutes
over the past 50 years.
Here are Jeremy Denk's thoughts on the "longer" Brahms:
http://jeremydenk.net/blog/2009/12/18/whose-brahms/

Rugby
j***@yale.edu
2010-08-02 14:22:51 UTC
Permalink
So, who plays the Brahms 2nd Piano Concerto "fast?" That is, in a
modern recording?

Jon Butler
Post by Huibert Jonkers
Like others, I'm curious about the reason for the
tempo inflation in i, which has been slowed down by about two minutes
over the past 50 years.
Here are Jeremy Denk's thoughts on the "longer" Brahms:http://jeremydenk.net/blog/2009/12/18/whose-brahms/
Rugby
Matthew B. Tepper
2010-08-02 14:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Rugby <***@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters to
be typed in news:e122ac66-3108-4c1a-b055-3088ecdad9f1
Post by Rugby
Like others, I'm curious about the reason for the tempo inflation in i,
which has been slowed down by about two minutes over the past 50 years.
http://jeremydenk.net/blog/2009/12/18/whose-brahms/
Hilarious!
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
William Sommerwerck
2010-08-02 14:53:56 UTC
Permalink
I'm curious about the reason for ... tempo inflation...
This has been discussed before. It seems that conductors equate "slowness"
with "profundity" -- though they rarely deliver the latter.

There's also the fact that, as people age, time seems to pass faster. Ergo,
older conductors hear the music as passing more quickly than younger
listeners.

I find MTT's Mahler tempos to sometimes be on the side of the "breaking
point". I can't imagine the "Midnight Song" any slower without it falling to
pieces.
David Oberman
2010-08-03 03:40:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 07:53:56 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
Post by William Sommerwerck
I'm curious about the reason for ... tempo inflation...
This has been discussed before. It seems that conductors equate "slowness"
with "profundity" -- though they rarely deliver the latter.
But slowness has an objective aspect, whereas profundity is completely
subjective.
pianomaven
2010-08-03 11:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
I'm curious about the reason for ... tempo inflation...
This has been discussed before. It seems that conductors equate "slowness"
with "profundity" -- though they rarely deliver the latter.
So, you think that fastness delivers where slowness doesn't?

How quaint!

TD
MickeyBoy
2010-08-02 17:03:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Huibert Jonkers
Brahms 1 :   Rubinstein/Reiner ;  Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 :   Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ; Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
Rugby
1: Curzon/Szell, Serkin/Szell, Backhaus/Boult.
Fleischer may be the liveliest of the 'Szell pianists', but I slightly
prefer the tenser approach of Curzon and Serkin. The Schnabel reading
I like too, but despite a sound tolerance of faulty playing I can't
get over the fact that he botches the double octaves in i (and more).
I don't agree with the criticism that Curzon isn't playing well - he
performs the first ten minutes of the concerto better than anyone I've
heard on record. Granted, in faster passages one can hear a little
stiffness, but it's nothing to get worked up about. His live recording
with Van Beinum is also very good.
2: Fischer/Furtwangler, Solomon/Dobrowen, Schnabel/Boult, Anda/
Fricsay, Gilels/Reiner.
Fischer's may be in my top 10 of favorite recordings of anything.
Solomon's technique is quite amazing, and it's a very elegant
performance too. Like others, I'm curious about the reason for the
tempo inflation in i, which has been slowed down by about two minutes
over the past 50 years.
Mega-dittos regarding Edwin Fischer & Willi Furtwangler.
Christopher Ingham
2010-08-02 17:08:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Huibert Jonkers
Brahms 1 :   Rubinstein/Reiner ;  Malcuzynski/Rowicki ; Schnabel/Szell
Brahms 2 :   Gilels/Reiner ; Rubinstein/Cluytens ; Backhaus/Boehm 1965
Yours ?
Rugby
1: Curzon/Szell, Serkin/Szell, Backhaus/Boult.
Fleischer may be the liveliest of the 'Szell pianists', but I slightly
prefer the tenser approach of Curzon and Serkin. The Schnabel reading
I like too, but despite a sound tolerance of faulty playing I can't
get over the fact that he botches the double octaves in i (and more).
I don't agree with the criticism that Curzon isn't playing well - he
performs the first ten minutes of the concerto better than anyone I've
heard on record. Granted, in faster passages one can hear a little
stiffness, but it's nothing to get worked up about. His live recording
with Van Beinum is also very good.
2: Fischer/Furtwangler, Solomon/Dobrowen, Schnabel/Boult, Anda/
Fricsay, Gilels/Reiner.
Fischer's may be in my top 10 of favorite recordings of anything.
Solomon's technique is quite amazing, and it's a very elegant
performance too. Like others, I'm curious about the reason for the
tempo inflation in i, which has been slowed down by about two minutes
over the past 50 years.
I remember a Solomon performance being described in one or more CD
guides as "leonine." Would you perchance know which one this is
supposed to be?

Christopher Ingham
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...