Chopin Recordings

Started by George, April 06, 2007, 06:00:36 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

George

#740
Quote from: kishnevi on March 21, 2010, 07:24:18 PM
That's a bit confusing.    Do you think Gavrilov or Pollini "makes it sound like a Rachmaninoff prelude"?

Gavrilov.

QuoteTo me, I'd rather not have a pianist make a Chopin prelude come out like a Rachmaninoff prelude.  I want to hear Chopin.  If I wanted to hear a Rachmaninoff prelude, I'd put on Rachmaninoff preludes.    And vice versa, of course.  (To make it clear, I'm not being negative about R., only being negative about playing music by other composers as if it was music by R.)

To be clear when I said "like Rachmaninoff," I meant that it was played boldly, with great passion and intensity. Not a sickly Chopin, but a strong, healthy Chopin. I used the Rachmaninoff reference as a shorthand. I know what you are saying, but I feel that there is room for many different approaches to these works. Cortot and Koczalski offer interpretations (slower, more poetic) that are very different from Gavrilov's and yet I enjoy them just as much as his.

zamyrabyrd

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one."

― Charles MacKay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

Mandryka

Quote from: Herman on March 21, 2010, 12:23:54 PM


Perhaps if I just heard the audio it would be different.

Exactly -- I rarely watch these videos. And this Katsaris one is particularly stupid.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

Herman

#743
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on March 21, 2010, 08:23:26 PM
Cocktail Chopin

exactly. where's the bowl with the dollar bills?

however the point I wanted to make too, is that this kind of performance just doesn't fit this music.

it's great if you can play it with such ease (though some shortcuts are taken), but it is not supposed to sound as if it came easy.

Scarpia

Just listened to Samson Francois' recording of the Chopin second sonata.  A wonderful performance, particularly the first movement where Francois handles the contrast between lyrical and convulsive passages perfectly.  In the repeated note figures the combination of rhythm and dynamics transforms the piano into a beast raging in anger or pain.  Breathtaking.  The audio engineering leaves something to be desired, too bright and clangy, a bit of richness in the low end would help, but a performance like this transcends the audio limitations.

If there is a part I would take issue with it might be the second movement Trio, where Francois creates an impression of fleeting beauty where others, such as Pollini, wallow in it a bit more.  But although I can't help but imagine what could have been, Francois' vision works there as well.

zamyrabyrd

I just viewed a film of Samson Francois playing the E minor Concerto of Chopin on Mezzo TV, the French Classical Channel. While there were many good things about it(the bane of conservatory criticism!), there were also some quirky moments that somewhat marred the overall impression.

The intro was spirited, tight and lyrical (the conductor could have been Louis Frémaux --not sure). The entry of the piano was rather a shock, not only was the tempo much slower but there was no effort to relate it to what the orchestra just did. And this pattern was repeated throughout the work while Francois was alternately slowing down and speeding up. It must have been maddening to try to keep up with him and I don't think they even ended together.

He took the second subject the same tempo as the introduction (finally) or maybe even faster, which was a surprise since the lyricism of a second theme is usually regarded as a foil to the first spirited one. Also the second movement in my opinion was rushed, depriving one of a repose between the fast movements. I also got the impression that certain difficult passages were slowed down to accomodate his technique at the time.

Having said that much, there was plenty of musical insight and beautiful phrasing from the pianist.  I got the impression that he is best when left to himself, although this recording may be the exception.

ZB
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one."

― Charles MacKay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

George

I asked this question over at RMCR, but figured it would be worthwhile to do so here as well:

As I enjoyed Moiseiwitsch's Chopin Preludes last night, I felt a bit dissapointed at the lack of intensity/fire/speed during the faster preludes.

Which performance(s) of the 24 Preludes, in your opinion, handles the slower preludes with great depth and poetry AND brings great fire and intensity to the faster preludes?


Holden

for starters:

Arrau - live in Prague 1960

Bolet - Carnegie Hall recital

Fiorentino
Cheers

Holden

Herman

Quote from: Holden on March 24, 2010, 01:38:53 AM
for starters:

Arrau - live in Prague 1960

Bolet - Carnegie Hall recital

Fiorentino

And that's not just for starters. The Arrau and the Bolet are the ones I've been going back to since I first had them. I am not familiar with the Fiorentino. I would add Anda and Cherkassky (live in Salzburg). I am listening now to Zhukov's live performance from the nineties, and today it doesn't please me much. May be different another time. And the Moiseiwitch is pretty good, too.

The utter Everest to me is Arrau's Prague version, one that I do not listen to too often, as I want to keep it fresh.

George

Quote from: Herman on March 24, 2010, 02:53:03 AM
I would add Anda and Cherkassky (live in Salzburg).

I've seen an Anda on DG. Is that the one you mean? 

Herman

Quote from: George on March 24, 2010, 03:17:12 AM
I've seen an Anda on DG. Is that the one you mean?

I suspect it is. Mine is in the Brilliant box. According to the credits it was recorded in 1959 in the Jesus Kirche in Berlin.

It is a studio recording and it doesn't have the high drama of a sink-or-swim live performance (neither does the Moiseiwitch), but I like it a lot.

I guess Anda is for me what a lot of folks here recently find in François (whom I do not like in Chopin).

George

Quote from: Herman on March 24, 2010, 03:57:32 AM
I suspect it is. Mine is in the Brilliant box. According to the credits it was recorded in 1959 in the Jesus Kirche in Berlin.

It is a studio recording and it doesn't have the high drama of a sink-or-swim live performance (neither does the Moiseiwitch), but I like it a lot.

So it sounds like it won't be what I am looking for:

Quotehandles the slower preludes with great depth and poetry AND brings great fire and intensity to the faster preludes?


Anyway, I have aquired a copy and will listen to it this week, along with one by Katsaris.

Herman

Indeed, the Anda is not what you're looking for at this moment. I think that's Arrau, except that you already have that one, and it doesn't click with you? (See I can write like a woman talks?)

George

Quote from: Herman on March 24, 2010, 09:36:50 AM
Indeed, the Anda is not what you're looking for at this moment. I think that's Arrau, except that you already have that one, and it doesn't click with you?

Not the first time, I shall try again, though.

Quote
(See I can write like a woman talks?)


???

zamyrabyrd

Quote from: Herman on March 21, 2010, 01:03:13 AM
Speaking of Katsaris, there is this video of him playing the 3d sonata.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtYUaHm1fak

it's not just that the interpretation strikes me as overly fussy, I don't get the video either, with CK making faces at the camera and casting glances towards the audience, and weird camera pans. It's almost as if this is some kind of vanity video, with the audience pasted in, later.

I see someone mentioned Bolet in relation to the Chopin Preludes. Here he plays masterfully the 4th movement of the 3rd Sonata. (Go back to school, Mr. K!!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBOV_tJeAVU&feature=related

ZB

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one."

― Charles MacKay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

George

This was shared with me earlier in the weeke and thought I'd share it here:

LP rips of Gilels' 1953 live Preludes


George

I decided today to finally compare the various sets of Chopin preludes that I have acquired over the years. These include: Moravec (VAI and Supraphon), Sokolov (naive), Lucchesini, Pletnev (live), Gilels (live), Arrau (live, Prague), Bolet (live, Carnegie Hall), Anda, Fiorentino, Ashkenazy, Freire, Pires, Barto, Ohlssohn (Arabesque), Katsaris, Sofronitsky (Brilliant, 11/21/51), Gulda (11-17-59 and Feb 1953), Serkin, Zhukov (live), Argerich, Rubinstein, Arrau (studio), Moiseiwitsch and Cortot (1933 and 1926.) My goal was to find the performers who were as adept at playing the faster, more exciting preludes as they were at playing the slower ones.

For round one, I compared the first four preludes. That helped me narrow the list down to just 11 pianists - Pires, Lucchesini, Barto, Moravec (Supraphon), Fiorentino, Sokolov, Katsaris, Sofronitsky, Gulda (11-17-59), Cortot (1933) and Argerich.

For round two, I compared preludes 5, 8, 10 and 12. These are some of the faster preludes. Barto and Cortot weren't up to the task.

For round three, I compared preludes 17, 19 and 24. This eliminated Argerich, Pires, Gulda, Katsaris and Sofronitsky.

That left four pianists for round four. I compared their performances of preludes 6, 7, 13 and 15. This revealed some holes in Lucchesini's performance and helped me choose 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. They are as follows, in order:

1. Sokolov (Naive)- An epic performance, with the best finale I have heard. Richter never recorded the complete preludes, but I imagine this is how it would sound if he had. A unique and powerful performance.

2. Moravec (Supraphon)- I had previously thought the much rarer, OOP VAI preludes were better than these, but after comparing them side by side, these are the clear winner. The piano tone is clearer and the playing is alternately more beautiful and more exciting. Tempos are more common than many of Sokolov's choices.

3. Lucchesini (EMI) - Definitely a surprise for me, as this one never seems to get mentioned anywhere. However, he is remarkably consistent throughout. The recorded sound is excellent and he plays with great sensitivity and clarity. The faster preludes do not disappoint either. 

4. Fiorentino - Would have rated higher, but the finale and a few of the other preludes (7 and 19) didn't really work for me. Otherwise, like Sokolov, his is an individual, special account of these works. This includes the slowest a minor prelude I have ever heard, a haunting, beautiful reading.

Honorable mention - Pires was great, only her heavy pedal foot and that missing last bit of intensity kept her out of my favorites. She has great, full piano sound. Katsaris was impressive technically, but his nervous rhythms and often too fast tempos didn't do it for me. His sound is also excellent, though not as full as Pires.   

Holden

Hello George - time to throw a contrary view into the works. First, thanks so much for the Gilels Op 28. I have never heard him in Chopin before and it was a salutary experience.

I have Preludes from
Argerich
Arrau - Prague
Ashkenazy
Bolet - live
Cortot
Fiorentino
Gilels
Kissin
Pollini
Rubinstein
Sokolov
Zayas
Zhukov

Now my criteria are different from yours. I believe that there is a connection between the preludes thematically, tonically and/or structurally and there appears to be a logical progression from one Prelude to the other. With the exception of #15 say, they sound rather pointless when played by themselves.

So what I'm looking for is a sense of the 'integral' when I listen to the complete opus. How does one piece flow into the other, does the transition make sense? In many recordings of Opus 28 it does not. The contrasts in tempo have to connect work and Martha Argerich, as exciting as her version may be (and with the best #24), does not produce this. So while it may be OK to play #16 at breakneck speed (which follows nicely on from D flat) you've then got to adjust the tempo of #17 to make it fit the pattern which Argerich fails to do. The tempo of #16 is Presto con fuoco, not prestissimo as some try to play it.  The con fuoco is enough to give it the bite it needs and a lot of the fire comes from the left hand.

With this in mind the following versions fit the bill - Bolet, Fiorentino, Cortot, Arrau and now the Gilels that I heard last night.

The Bolet and the Arrau are the ones I always return to and for different reasons. The fact that they are both live is no coincidence I believe and helps the flow. Arrau was a master at seeing and portraying the big picture and he is no different here. Bolet's Carnegie Hall recital is superb and you can feel the music flow naturally from piece to piece and it was my reference for a number of years and it still is in many ways.

Finally Gilels! I sat enraptured as I listened to the music unfold naturally and logically from this man's fingers . This is pure analloyed, unadulterated simple playing with no attempts to turn any big tricks. Each tempo is well considered. There are no extra accents or embellishments and the sense of listening to a whole work was palpable and this is how I like to hear Chopin. You don't have to work overtime to wring out every last piece of emotional content from the music - it's already there. The trick is to find it. This is what I believe Rubinstein does so well and maybe Gilels does as well (I'm going to have to find out). My favourite Chopin pianist is Solomon. This is how he played Chopin and listening to Gilels I think Solomon would have come up with something very similar.

Finally, a mention of a recording I used to have on LP by the great and much forgotten Spanish pianist Rafael Orozco. I no longer have the LP but some selections of Op 28 on Youtube take my memory back to this recording and how special it was to me. A pity that it never made it to CD.

So that's my 10 cents worth and thanks for the interesting thread material George.
Cheers

Holden

George

Quote from: Holden on March 26, 2010, 06:12:50 PM
So that's my 10 cents worth and thanks for the interesting thread material George.

And thanks very much for your post, Holden.

I have no idea why, but the live Bolet and live Arrau never completely clicked for me. I enjoy them both, but I don't consider them a top choice. I can't say exactly why, only that the performances just don't "speak" to me as a number of others do.

I agree with your point that these works are part of a whole and should be played that way (though Richter would perhaps argue the contrary) but it was impractical for me to compare 27 sets of preludes in this manner. My plan is to listen to the 6 top choices as a set over the next few weeks and see how they come across that way. At any rate, I like a slow 2nd prelude and a big, epic final prelude. These two preferences eliminate a lot of performances right off the bat, though I try my best to be open minded. 

kishnevi

George, you should have had brackets and made it a March Madness play-off.
I don't have most of the versions you list--just four (Rubinstein, Pollini, Argerich, and Arrau (studio).  But I do have one you don't mention, the relatively recent one by Blechacz.  Is he one you've simply not heard, or one you've listened to and found wanting?