I googled on chopin complete works and could not find a hit for a single boxed set by Rubenstein. I found one by Ashkenazy, which I suspect would be quite good. I did find individual references to Rubenstein's recordings, but not to any single box containing all of Chopin's works for piano. Did Rubenstein record them all? Are they available at all as a single individual purchase?
Second variation of the question: If not Rubenstein, then whose?
http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/hnum/6155241?rk=classic&rsk=hitlist
Quote from: tomseeley on October 31, 2007, 09:16:08 AM
I googled on chopin complete works and could not find a hit for a single boxed set by Rubenstein. I found one by Ashkenazy, which I suspect would be quite good. I did find individual references to Rubenstein's recordings, but not to any single box containing all of Chopin's works for piano. Did Rubenstein record them all? Are they available at all as a single individual purchase?
Second variation of the question: If not Rubenstein, then whose?
Pleeeaaase, at least spell the poor man's name properly. :'(
The Rubinstein box set is NOT complete btw - Rubinstein never dared to commercially record the complete études.
Q
Quote from: Que on October 31, 2007, 09:56:30 AM
Pleeeaaase, at least spell the poor man's name properly. :'(
The Rubinstein box set is NOT complete btw - Rubinstein never dared to commercially record the complete études.
Q
But almost.... ;D
Idil Biret on Naxos was my first box purchase for Chopin. IT does include pretty much everything in the catalogue, eventhe obscure pieces. I don't listen to it much anymore, the playing is uniformly mediocre. but it can be a cheap way to get yourself acquainted with all of his works.
I think Rubinstein's individual recordings are well worth tracking down; he's certainly my favorite for the mazurkas and probably the nocturnes as well.
For an inexpensive intro to Chopin, though, I think Ashkenazy's box is excellent. He is by no means mediocre (his Beethoven leaves me cool, but his Chopin is quite enjoyable, I really like his etudes), and from what I've heard and read there's general agreement that he's at least good, if not outstanding, in pretty much the whole set. Chopin recommendations around here seem to be the most subjective of any composer, though -- everyone has their own idea about what Chopin should sound like, and they differ widely (as well they should -- Chopin's music is about mood and color and subtle shadings, and it's all a matter of personal taste, after all).
At any rate, of course you could put together a far superior set by cherry-picking from various pianists, but for a simple and comprehensive introduction I'd feel quite safe with Ashkenazy.
Quote from: jwinter on October 31, 2007, 10:25:29 AM
I think Rubinstein's individual recordings are well worth tracking down; he's certainly my favorite for the mazurkas and probably the nocturnes as well.
For an inexpensive intro to Chopin, though, I think Ashkenazy's box is excellent. He is by no means mediocre (his Beethoven leaves me cool, but his Chopin is quite enjoyable, I really like his etudes), and from what I've heard and read there's general agreement that he's at least good, if not outstanding, in pretty much the whole set. Chopin recommendations around here seem to be the most subjective of any composer, though -- everyone has their own idea about what Chopin should sound like, and they differ widely (as well they should -- Chopin's music is about mood and color and subtle shadings, and it's all a matter of personal taste, after all).
At any rate, of course you could put together a far superior set by cherry-picking from various pianists, but for a simple and comprehensive introduction I'd feel quite safe with Ashkenazy.
I heartily concur. The Ashkenazy is an excellent intriduction and it's so cheap. Out of the set the Etudes, Waltzes and the Polonaises are par excellence, possibly even non pareil!
Or who else? Ashkenazy. I can't think of anyone who plays Chopin better.
a shame about the painfully close recorded quality--mic in the piano--of the Milosz Magin box-set because otherwise it would be recommendable for a full set
I also have the Idil Biret set. Agreed it's okay. The piano is very bright, i am not a big fan of bright pianos, even more so when playing Chopin.
Quote from: Holden on October 31, 2007, 12:05:08 PM
I heartily concur. The Ashkenazy is an excellent intriduction and it's so cheap. Out of the set the Etudes, Waltzes and the Polonaises are par excellence, possibly even non pareil!
Yes, get the Ashkenazy!
Quote from: 12tone. on October 31, 2007, 05:01:01 PM
Or who else? Ashkenazy. I can't think of anyone who plays Chopin better.
Or closer to your taste. Personnaly i can't hear the Nocturnes of anybody (Rubinstein, Ashkenazy and Horowitz - the so-called "greatests" Chopin performers - never did it for me), minus Barenboim.
I don't think the Ashkenazy is a complete set - it's just the solo piano (and two pianos) works... ::) And you really wouldn't want to be left without the cello sonata (not to mention the concertos, of course).
I'm aware of three sets pretending to be complete: on DG (17 CDs), Polish Radio (20 CDs), and Brilliant (17 or 30 CDs, depending on edition) - of these I only have the second, and I can testify that it is almost complete but not quite. Judging by the number of CDs Brilliant could be the truly complete set (though apparently not in very good performance, see discussion here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,3870.0.html)), though I suppose DG has the best set of performers.
There's also the Polish "National Edition" on BeArTon (http://www.bearton.pl/sklep/index.php?action=show_podcat&id=1&item=1) but that's only reached CD no. 16. It is moving along pretty fast though. I think they'll be done in a year or two, three at most.
Quote from: Maciek on November 03, 2007, 01:10:56 AM
I don't think the Ashkenazy is a complete set - it's just the solo piano (and two pianos) works... ::) And you really wouldn't want to be left without the cello sonata (not to mention the concertos, of course).
Quite so. :)
Quote from: Varg on November 02, 2007, 10:31:17 PM
Or closer to your taste. Personnaly i can't hear the Nocturnes of anybody (Rubinstein, Ashkenazy and Horowitz - the so-called "greatests" Chopin performers - never did it for me), minus Barenboim.
Sorry, does this mean that Barenboim's the man for you in the Nocturnes? ???
I have all the Rubinstein Chopin (well at least one version of all the pieces that he recorded) and most of the Ashkenazy. I bought the Ashkenazy disks separately and so missed out on some of the rarer single pieces that were included on that, now wonderfully priced, box set that have not been released in another issue. These two are my Chopin dream team (horrible term, I know) and give me everything I need from Chopin's solo works. Other pianists can give me great pleasure from Chopin (Pollini for example)but Ashkenazy and Rubinstein seem to have the insights that mean the most to my. I don't like Horowitz at all - his tempi and phrasing just don't hit my spot and I can't take the bum notes I'm afraid.
I don't particularly like Ashkenazy in Chopin.....
And I find him quite different in style from Rubinstein, so I don't understand why the two are mentioned in one breath.
I guess that makes me a tiny minority? 8)
Q
Don't worry, Que: I was amazed at the lack of love for Horowitz, of whose Chopin I've heard but little, though I liked it a lot.
The reason is there in your reply - they are VERY different in their relative approaches and each touches something in me.
You were amazed at MY lack of love for Horowitz or generally?
Quote from: Great Gable on November 03, 2007, 03:28:07 AM
You were amazed at MY lack of love for Horowitz or generally?
Yours. Though what do I know? I'm certainly no pianophile.
Why amazed? We can't all like the same interpreters? Are you equally amazed if someone dislikes any other popular solist?
Quote from: Great Gable on November 03, 2007, 03:32:54 AM
Are you equally amazed if someone dislikes any other popular solist?
Sometimes.
Quote from: Great Gable on November 03, 2007, 03:32:54 AM
Are you equally amazed if someone dislikes any other popular solist?
i am amazed anyone could like
any popular soloists ;D I like both Ashkenazy and Rubinstein but only during their early periods, especially Ashkenazy's '50s, early '60s Chopin, so much more virtuosic
and poetic than his later recordings
Why's that then? It either moves you or it doesn't. There are quite a few interpreters I don't like although the one that I could never stand in his/my youth, Nigel Kennedy, has improved to my ears in recent years. His ealier readings were so idiosyncratic as to make some pieces almost unrecognisable to me. Musical interpretation is as important as the original composition to me. They can make or break the music. (Or are you pulling my leg?)
(You have to be - given the quote re. Du Pre you currently use).
Quote from: Great Gable on November 03, 2007, 03:41:03 AM
Why's that then? It either moves you or it doesn't. There are quite a few interpreters I don't like although the one that I could never stand in his/my youth, Nigel Kennedy, has improved to my ears in recent years. His ealier readings were so idiosyncratic as to make some pieces almost unrecognisable to me.
OT, but I'm with you on the Kennedy thing. Like him a lot more these days. :)
And yes, Du Pre did make almost everything her own, for better or worse depending on your tastes. ;D
Well along those lines - I can explain why the two do it for me with Chopin. I love everything Ashkenazy does - from any period of his career. A lot of him goes into his interpretation(s) and that's fine by me. Whilst Rubinstein, to my ears (and a little imagination) is as near as I can get to listening to Chopin play the pieces himself. Of course no-one can accurately state such claims - it's all rather fanciful but when I listen to Rubinstein I hear Chopin.
I have read a lot about musicians/conductors adhering strictly to the composer's wishes on this forum of late. Whilst authenticity is to be lauded, as I stated earlier, interpretation is all to me. After all, why would so many of us buy so many different versions of one work?
Quote from: Great Gable on November 03, 2007, 03:57:29 AM
Whilst authenticity is to be lauded, as I stated earlier, interpretation is all to me. After all, why would so many of us buy so many different versions of one work?
An interesting point. Perhaps a new thread is needed for its discussion?
Necromancy at its finest as I resurrect an 11-year-old thread. In the intervening years since the last post on this fine thread, what is the general consensus or preference for a complete Chopin box?
TIA,
-09
I doubt that there is a general consensus. Rubinstein is not an option because it is not at all complete, mainly missing both sets of etudes (and the preludes are only in a not too great sounding historical recording) as well as minor works like the 1st sonata. And his best and most gripping interpretations are often not the most frequently re-issued stereo recordings.
Also, if you want complete you need the chamber pieces and the songs (each about one disc worth). I do have a DG box that is supposedly complete but with many different pianists. Surprisingly it seems to be still available although for some reason I am sometimes shown a similar Brilliant classics box
[asin]B002NFCHBA[/asin]
They are all in good stereo sound and range from very good to excellent. Overall mostly rather straightforward performances (like 1970s+80s Pollini) dominate (with Zimerman's concerti being one rather mannered exception) but this might be a good thing for a "basic edition". You can always add more extravagant recordings (like Pogorelich's)
Another (almost complete, i.e. no chamber, songs and shorter concertante pieces, none of which are essential IMO, except for the cello sonata, although I am also quite fond of the trio and that cello polonaise) I am familiar with is Samson Francois' on EMI/warner. He had recorded quite a few pieces twice or even up to four times and they picked the stereo recordings for that box (if available). The sound is variable with some not so great mono and considering the vintage even more disappointing drab stereo but overall serviceable. Francois is a mixed bag, highly personal, sometimes very odd but often fascinating. Probably not the best choice for a basic set.
Not sure, but Ashkenazy probably also has a virtually complete set that should be quite good (his mazurkas and waltzes are in the DG).
If you don't insist on getting all the juvenilia, it is also not too difficult to get choice recordings of the major works separately. Even the odd early polonaise or less frequently recorded pieces like the Bolero will show up in recital discs or anthologies.
Pietro de Maria's set is not available on Amazon US but is available from 3 vendors on Amazon Italy's Marketplace. (I didn't check any other Amazon site.)
https://www.amazon.it/Complete-Piano-Works-Box13cd-PIETRO/dp/B00N29UQZA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1546476869&sr=8-1&keywords=B00N29UQZA
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51WjOLX9PNL.jpg)
I find him uniformly good throughout.
But I confess that I like all of Rubinstein's Chopin, even if he didn't do everything.
Did Gerrick Ohlsson complete his complete Chopin project? What I have heard from the set has been excellent.
Quote from: springrite on January 02, 2019, 04:12:12 PM
Did Gerrick Ohlsson complete his complete Chopin project? What I have heard from the set has been excellent.
Yes. This is the Amazon listing.
[asin]B001F4YGUA[/asin]
BTW, the Brilliant Classics set
[asin]B00TXZLYGW[/asin]
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81-sY89OsIL.jpg)
I can vouch for the Schmitt-Leonardy contribution.
Quote from: JBS on January 02, 2019, 04:27:31 PM
Yes. This is the Amazon listing.
[asin]B001F4YGUA[/asin]
Oh yes. That was the re-issues of his old Arabesque set, I believe.
Quote from: JBS on January 02, 2019, 04:02:26 PM
Pietro de Maria's set is not available on Amazon US but is available from 3 vendors on Amazon Italy's Marketplace. (I didn't check any other Amazon site.)
https://www.amazon.it/Complete-Piano-Works-Box13cd-PIETRO/dp/B00N29UQZA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1546476869&sr=8-1&keywords=B00N29UQZA
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51WjOLX9PNL.jpg)
I find him uniformly good throughout.
But I confess that I like all of Rubinstein's Chopin, even if he didn't do everything.
Among the complete/near complete sets I've heard, I definitely prefer De Maria to both Ashkenazy and Magaloff. I've not heard enough of Ohlsson's set to say for sure I'd choose the Italian, but I'd choose the Italian.
Yukio Yokoyama's early Sony recordings have enough good playing to make think his King Records complete set may be worth considering for die hard Chopin collectors.
I've heard nothing from Idil Biret's, Tatiana Shebanova's, or Mei-Ting Sun's complete sets. Maybe one of those is The One. I have my doubts.
When it comes to Rubinstein, in general the earlier the better.
Quote from: Omicron9 on January 02, 2019, 08:45:44 AM
Necromancy at its finest as I resurrect an 11-year-old thread. In the intervening years since the last post on this fine thread, what is the general consensus or preference for a complete Chopin box?
TIA,
-09
The Real Chopin is the one which has given me most pleasure. I wonder if anyone has tried this -- Maria Wiłkomirska, Kazimierz Wiłkomirski, Jan Ekier, Regina Smendzianka, Halina Czerny-Stefańska, Bolesław Woytowicz, Ludwik Stefański, Henryk Sztompka, Zbigniew Drzewiecki, Lidia Grychtołówna, Władysław Kędra, Witold Rowicki
(http://i60.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1113/c5/4c5ae17f7cd00e25feb36e31099e22c5.jpg)
Haven't listened to the whole of this but the first three discs are excellent.
(https://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_400/MI0001/067/MI0001067993.jpg?partner=allrovi.com) (https://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_500/MI0001/067/MI0001067994.jpg?partner=allrovi.com)
I have the last disc of El Bacha separately. It is good although I cannot be more specific.
I did not mean to detract from Rubinstein. My favorites are probably the ca. 1950s recordings but they are not boxed separately unlike the cheapo set that has mostly the 60s stereo + the 1946 Preludes (because it is the only one)
I don't think I need a complete works from a single pianist. I have most works covered by sets from Pollini, Vasary and Francois plus numerous recital discs from others.
Thanks, all; beyond helpful and mondo appreciated. The DG collection/box set is the one on which I had my eye.
Thanks again.
-09
The DG/Universal is the somewhat typical mix of "standard" back catalogue recordings, e.g. Pollini and somewhat less obvious choices. I guess Pogo sells well enough in single discs and he is highly idiosyncratic, so his not included. But they apparently wanted to have two younger laureates, namely Blechacz and Li. Zimerman has also been very famous since winning the prize but his concerti are rather special (slow and mannered although impressive in their attention to detail, including orchestral details).
It's been a while I listened to that box but I think it is a very good basic set. It was worth it for me although I hardly needed a basic set when I bought it around 2010, having most of these works, apart from the songs and some other odds and ends already in (usually plenty of) different interpretations already.
FWIW, I think Ashkenazy's Chopin is superb, his box would be a fine place to start. The concerti and cello sonata can be readily found to supplement it. I've never experienced any curiosity about the juvenilia or songs, but I guess that may be the point of it for some. I have the Ohlsen set though I've never gotten to it. I always end up finding an Arrau disc in my player when the need for Chopin appears.