Any piece that you have lots of recordings of but still not completely happy?

[amw]

Beethoven's Hammerklavier and Schumann's Carnaval, both of which I've heard almost no recordings of that are faithful to the score and successfully manage to convey the feeling of the work at the same time. In the case of the Hammerklavier, almost no one can convey the feeling of the work at all, regardless of how close they are to the score.

Schumann's Davidsbündlertänze, Chopin's Sonata No. 3, and Beethoven's Op. 130 with the substitute finale, all of which I haven't yet found recordings that ideally express the nature of the music.

As the converse, I can think of two pieces I've heard where every single recording I know of is good—Dvořák's Op. 51 and Ravel's Piano Trio.

[Mandryka]

Beethoven's Hammerklavier and Schumann's Carnaval, both of which I've heard almost no recordings of that are faithful to the score and successfully manage to convey the feeling of the work at the same time. In the case of the Hammerklavier, almost no one can convey the feeling of the work at all, regardless of how close they are to the score.

Schumann's Davidsbündlertänze, Chopin's Sonata No. 3, and Beethoven's Op. 130 with the substitute finale, all of which I haven't yet found recordings that ideally express the nature of the music.

As the converse, I can think of two pieces I've heard where every single recording I know of is good—Dvořák's Op. 51 and Ravel's Piano Trio.

What's this alternative final palaver in op 130 about? I agree about dbt, I've never explored carnival, I've given up on op 106, I don't know what you're looking for in the Chopin.

[Mandryka]

The Szell convinced me. I didn't care much for the symphony before hearing Szell. But as you said in a previous post, it's quite "classical" and may not be the ideal classic/romantic hybrid you seem to be looking for.

Why? I mean, why would you recommend it? As an alternative to Szell? I have these so I'm satisfied I've covered most, if not all, of the bases.

DOHNANYI   CLEVELAND
FURTWÄNGLER BERLIN PHIL
KLEMPERER PHILHARMONIA
ABENDROTH RSO LEIPZIG
DAVIS STAATSKAPELLE DRESDEN
BERNSTEIN CONCERTGEBOUW
WAND BERLIN PHIL
SINOPOLI STAATSKAPELLE DRESDEN
CELIBIDACHE MUNICH PHIL
SZELL CLEVELAND
GIULINI CHICAGO
GOODMAN   HANOVER BAND
HARNONCOURT CONCERTGEBOUW
IMMERSEEL ANIMA ETERNA
BLOMSTEDT STAATSKAPELLE DRESDEN
MAAZEL SOBR
ABBADO COE


But if you think Maderna an interesting choice, then please, upload it.

Sarge

I'll send you the files, more bracing than Sz, Maderna's  like someone throws a glass of cold water in your face. No that's not quite fair because it's so elegant and light and sunny.

[Jo498]

Beethoven's Hammerklavier and Schumann's Carnaval, both of which I've heard almost no recordings of that are faithful to the score and successfully manage to convey the feeling of the work at the same time. In the case of the Hammerklavier, almost no one can convey the feeling of the work at all, regardless of how close they are to the score.

How would you distinguish between "feeling" and closeness to the score in these cases? Would it be like, e.g. a performance of the Missa solemnis that made a lot of details and voices audible that are usually lost among the huge forces but did not convey emotion of exultation, devotion etc.?

Beethoven's Op. 130 with the substitute finale, all of which I haven't yet found recordings that ideally express the nature of the music.

Do you mean you have found satisfactory recordings/performances with the fugue as finale? Cannot one usually program most recordings for both versions?

May ask you favorites for Schubert's Great C major?

[amw]

What's this alternative final palaver in op 130 about? I agree about dbt, I've never explored carnival, I've given up on op 106, I don't know what you're looking for in the Chopin.

The problem with Op. 130 is always reconciling its incoherent extremes—it's got that incredibly weird first movement, a 4/4 scherzo, two movements in keys a tritone apart with no justification, that inexplicable outburst in the Cavatina, etc. When you're playing it with the Grosse Fuge—or as many string quartets do on record, with the Grosse Fuge first and then substitute finale second—you can drive these contrasts hard because the Fuge will be the payoff, and concentrate your energies on that and using its gradual dissolution and reconstruction to "resolve" the rest of the piece. The Fuge is what the entire work is driving towards; it's the emotional centre.

When you instead have the 1826 finale, the Cavatina becomes the emotional centre. Not that it isn't a lovely movement (and one that has haunted me for most of my life—especially this bit) but in terms of actual content it is very slight, and making it carry so much weight and tension is difficult. The 1826 finale is partially resolution and mostly a simple dismissal. This makes it difficult to render convincingly because no matter what is done with it there will be a sense of material left unresolved—Beethoven ensures this at every turn in the finale, with regular phrases that "sound" irregular, a structure that often seems unclear whether it wants to be sonata or rondo, bizarre transitions and at the very end literally leaving the music hanging on the final semiquaver of a bar. So a good performance cannot shy away from this sense of irresolution and incoherency but has to, at the same time, make it remain unresolved with great conviction. The Grosse Fuge does not require conviction, simply good intonation and lots and lots of caffeine. For that reason I think the version of Op. 130 with the 1826 finale is by far the more difficult to interpret.

Chopin I look for a pianist who's very sensitive to phrasing and nuance, takes the repeat and doesn't play around with the tempo too much.

How would you distinguish between "feeling" and closeness to the score in these cases? Would it be like, e.g. a performance of the Missa solemnis that made a lot of details and voices audible that are usually lost among the huge forces but did not convey emotion of exultation, devotion etc.?

Typically with Beethoven (I'd include the Missa solemnis as an example) simply playing exactly what's written in the score will bring out those qualities of exultation, devotion, etc. This doesn't mean just the notes (like a computer program) but also the dynamics, articulations, tempi, expressive marks, etc. Human beings interpret all of these things subjectively of course, but each one will bring out their own subjective feelings of that kind of thing from careful and considered interaction with the score.

The Hammerklavier seems to be an exception mostly because of how difficult it is to perform the score accurately. So the ones that come closest are typically playing the notes, tempi and sometimes dynamics but missing out on the rest, and the rest is quite important and in the case of Beethoven (where a lot of contextual information from his time period is necessary) needs a certain amount of study to understand.

Do you mean you have found satisfactory recordings/performances with the fugue as finale? Cannot one usually program most recordings for both versions?

One can, but typically, whichever option is listed first on the CD is the finale that informed the interpretation of the other five movements in the performance. Programming the last track instead is similar to taking a CD recording of Mahler's 6th and programming the middle movements in the reverse order. Perfectly fine to do, but not what the interpreters intended.

The satisfactory recordings/performances I know of with the fugue as finale are the Hagen Quartet and the Takács Quartet. (They also play the alternative finale on the subsequent track. I'm not sure how well it works programming that instead of the fugue.) I think the most satisfactory recording I know of with the 1826 finale is the Belcea Quartet but I'm still not totally convinced—they skip the first movement repeat and tend to overplay a bit.

May ask you favorites for Schubert's Great C major?

I won't be very helpful sorry. I think I liked Minkowski the best, also one of the Wands (probably NDR rather than Köln) and Bernstein with the NYPO which nobody else is going to like. It's not a piece I have ever done much comparing of though.

[Mandryka]

The problem with Op. 130 is always reconciling its incoherent extremes—it's got that incredibly weird first movement, a 4/4 scherzo, two movements in keys a tritone apart with no justification, that inexplicable outburst in the Cavatina, etc. When you're playing it with the Grosse Fuge—or as many string quartets do on record, with the Grosse Fuge first and then substitute finale second—you can drive these contrasts hard because the Fuge will be the payoff, and concentrate your energies on that and using its gradual dissolution and reconstruction to "resolve" the rest of the piece. The Fuge is what the entire work is driving towards; it's the emotional centre.

When you instead have the 1826 finale, the Cavatina becomes the emotional centre. Not that it isn't a lovely movement (and one that has haunted me for most of my life—especially this bit) but in terms of actual content it is very slight, and making it carry so much weight and tension is difficult. The 1826 finale is partially resolution and mostly a simple dismissal. This makes it difficult to render convincingly because no matter what is done with it there will be a sense of material left unresolved—Beethoven ensures this at every turn in the finale, with regular phrases that "sound" irregular, a structure that often seems unclear whether it wants to be sonata or rondo, bizarre transitions and at the very end literally leaving the music hanging on the final semiquaver of a bar. So a good performance cannot shy away from this sense of irresolution and incoherency but has to, at the same time, make it remain unresolved with great conviction. The Grosse Fuge does not require conviction, simply good intonation and lots and lots of caffeine. For that reason I think the version of Op. 130 with the 1826 finale is by far the more difficult to interpret.

Chopin I look for a pianist who's very sensitive to phrasing and nuance, takes the repeat and doesn't play around with the tempo too much.
Typically with Beethoven (I'd include the Missa solemnis as an example) simply playing exactly what's written in the score will bring out those qualities of exultation, devotion, etc. This doesn't mean just the notes (like a computer program) but also the dynamics, articulations, tempi, expressive marks, etc. Human beings interpret all of these things subjectively of course, but each one will bring out their own subjective feelings of that kind of thing from careful and considered interaction with the score.

The Hammerklavier seems to be an exception mostly because of how difficult it is to perform the score accurately. So the ones that come closest are typically playing the notes, tempi and sometimes dynamics but missing out on the rest, and the rest is quite important and in the case of Beethoven (where a lot of contextual information from his time period is necessary) needs a certain amount of study to understand.
One can, but typically, whichever option is listed first on the CD is the finale that informed the interpretation of the other five movements in the performance. Programming the last track instead is similar to taking a CD recording of Mahler's 6th and programming the middle movements in the reverse order. Perfectly fine to do, but not what the interpreters intended.

The satisfactory recordings/performances I know of with the fugue as finale are the Hagen Quartet and the Takács Quartet. (They also play the alternative finale on the subsequent track. I'm not sure how well it works programming that instead of the fugue.) I think the most satisfactory recording I know of with the 1826 finale is the Belcea Quartet but I'm still not totally convinced—they skip the first movement repeat and tend to overplay a bit.
I won't be very helpful sorry. I think I liked Minkowski the best, also one of the Wands (probably NDR rather than Köln) and Bernstein with the NYPO which nobody else is going to like. It's not a piece I have ever done much comparing of though.

Yes sorry I was going mad and I was confusing op 130 with op 109! Senior moment. Sorry to have given you so much trouble for nothing. For what it's worth, there's a lot of discussion of this in the first recording of the quartet by the Tokyo Quartet, and they claim to have prepared the ground for the fugue by the way they play the cavatina.

Another thing I found interesting when I was thinking about this very question was the final recording that the Busch quartet made. They were resolutely in favour of using the "rondo" finale, and really perfected it, found a way of making it sound less triv than normal. The recording I'm thinking of is a live one which arbiter released, if you want it let me know - it'll be my way of making amends for putting you to all that trouble.

[amw]

I really liked the Busch recording on Warner (with the 1826 finale also—don't know how I forgot that as a recommendable version) so sure, would love to hear it. Busches are more or less definitive in Beethoven.

[Que]

If I am not forgetting any, I have

Mengelberg (ca. 1940, some cheapo documents box)
Furtwängler/DG live wartime
Furtwängler/DG studio
Abendroth live (Berlin Classics)
Klemperer
Munch
Szell
E. Kleiber/Cologne (Decca Masters Box)
Barbirolli/Hallé
Giulini/Chicago
Harnoncourt/Concertgebouw
Keitel/Putbus (super cheap on Arte Nova and actually pretty good in the early symphonies, don't remember their 9th)
Weil (my only true "HIP")
Davis/Dresden

I owned the Karajan/DG and one of Wand's (I think NDR live) but got rid of them years ago.

I don't want to send you on a wild goose chase, but I'm missing my favourite Old School favourite Josef Krips:


[asin]B00020QWAU[/asin]

My HIP favourite is Van Immerseel. Some really Old School I like are Bruno Walter (LPO 1938) and also the Mengelberg from 1940 that you have.

Q

[relm1]

Though there are 100 recordings of The Planets, I am not completely happy with any of them.  Each can be improved upon in some way.  Same with Mahler 2 and Shostakovitch 5. 

[PerfectWagnerite]

Though there are 100 recordings of The Planets, I am not completely happy with any of them.  Each can be improved upon in some way.  Same with Mahler 2 and Shostakovitch 5.

In the case of M2 I find it very hard to stomach the fact that there are so many conductors who can't seem to conduct what is written in the score. Just the opening 10 bars or so pretty much no one tries to distinguish between ff, fff, staccato, and tenuto appropriately. Also the cello and contrabass ascending run in the second half of bar 4 is almost always wrong. There is no accent on the C nor did Mahler indicate ANY emphasis on the C whatsover.

[Turner]

If I am not forgetting any, I have

Mengelberg (ca. 1940, some cheapo documents box)
Furtwängler/DG live wartime
Furtwängler/DG studio
Abendroth live (Berlin Classics)
Klemperer
Munch
Szell
E. Kleiber/Cologne (Decca Masters Box)
Barbirolli/Hallé
Giulini/Chicago
Harnoncourt/Concertgebouw
Keitel/Putbus (super cheap on Arte Nova and actually pretty good in the early symphonies, don't remember their 9th)
Weil (my only true "HIP")
Davis/Dresden

Good choices, quite similar to mine:

- Mengelberg,CtGeb/rad ye 40-98 ry 96
- Abendroth,LeipRSO/berl cl 49-92 bc2051-2
- Blomstedt,DresKap/berl clas 84-96 0093142bc (not sure I´ve still got it)
- Mengelberg,CtGeb/tim 42 29-00 205255-303
- Harnoncourt,CtGeb/warner 4cd 2564 62323-2
- Marriner,AcStM/ph 84 rh 215 041
- Furtwängler,BPO/dg 6lp 100 years
- Munch,BosSO/rca drl1-0072
- Szell,ClevSO/cbs 59-81 60132
- Kertesz,WPO/decca cs 6381
- Toscanini,NBCO/rca 53-xx mono lm-1835

[Holden]

To wade into the Schubert C major debate, I am very happy mwith one nobody has mentioned yet - Abbado COE. I have the Walter and it's very good and I've heard and liked the Krips.

[relm1]

In the case of M2 I find it very hard to stomach the fact that there are so many conductors who can't seem to conduct what is written in the score. Just the opening 10 bars or so pretty much no one tries to distinguish between ff, fff, staccato, and tenuto appropriately. Also the cello and contrabass ascending run in the second half of bar 4 is almost always wrong. There is no accent on the C nor did Mahler indicate ANY emphasis on the C whatsover.

I think it is a work that has so much detail that it is practically impossible to play it exactly as written and also get a musical performance.  Conductors usually err on the side of musicality over accuracy which they should but that is also why I always feel it can be improved upon.  One thing that bugs me, in the Mahler 8 with SFO/MTT, the organ is barely audible.  Some say that is so it can better blend but a fortissimo organ with "full stops" is not going to blend.  It's going to obliterate what ever is in its path and I think Mahler new that.

[Parsifal]

Regarding the Schubert 9 obsessing, anyone mention this one yet?

[PerfectWagnerite]

my ideal Schubert 9 would have the exposition repeat in the outer mvts and not all of it in the 3rd, on modern instruments.

[Jo498]

I admittedly have never heard the Böhm (there is another one from Dresden, preferred by some) or Krips but partly because I didn't expect "traditional" version to meet my expectations. Besides, I don't really like Böhm in Mozart or Beethoven.

[Brian]

Mozart
Symphony #40
Bohm is closest, but I'd like that approach HIP. Hogwood is pretty good but not quite there yet.

I think Gardiner might be apropos here?

The Bruckner 7th, where next to nobody plays the opening of the first movement at Bruckner's metronome mark, or the rhythms of the scherzo as notated.

Agreed. The more I love this symphony, the more frustrated I become by almost every recording.

Really surprised the Schubert 8th "9th" is a topic here - have heard many recordings of that piece I love, not least Harnoncourt or Mackerras (Philharmonia).

[Mandryka]

Really surprised the Schubert 8th "9th" is a topic here - have heard many recordings of that piece I love, not least Harnoncourt or Mackerras (Philharmonia).

I think there is a problem to do with Schubert 9, and it has to do with the similarity at the level of rhythm and tempo from one movement to the next.

[DaveF]

I seem to be particularly hard to please with Nielsen, especially the 5th symphony, clarinet concerto and Commotio.  Own several recordings of each (5 clarinet concertos, 3 Commotios, 3 symphonies), yet not entirely happy with any.  Until recently the same would have been true of the Byrd Great Service, but the Westminster Abbey Choir on my new Hyperion seem to do the job much as I like.

[TheGSMoeller]

Bruckner 6th - even after the blind listening I held, which resulted in me owning over 20 versions of this saucy piece, I'm still truly without one I'd consider essential, or even my favorite. Many recording come close, but have one movement that is out of balance to the other three, or an ending coda that lacks steam, or an inaudible timpani in the opening movement's triumphant mid-climax, or a conductor that's too afraid to add a little interpretation, or a conductor that adds too much interpretation...see, I get picky. With that being said, it's not that I don't love some of the recordings I own (Haitink/Dresden, Blomstedt/Leipzig or SF, Celibidache/Muncih, Norrington/SWR Stuttgart, Nagano/DSOB to name a few) it's that I still haven't found THE ONE. But I do love this music.