Blind Comparison LIGHTNING ROUND: Bach/Busoni Chaconne!

[aukhawk]

Anyway... I have listened to these 4 recordings twice (in different order) and am having trouble ranking them. I went ahead and read the thread, which made me conscious that I am accustomed to the violin version. Usually I try to avoid preconceived notions about what something should sound like and instead pick what works musically. That's difficult here ...

I agree.  I listened to #1 and #3, but then I just had to go back and cleanse my palette by listening to the original as played on the violin.
I really feel Busoni missed the point when writing this version, and the end result isn't easy to like, regardless of who is playing it.  Interesting though.

[Karl Henning]

. . . and the end result isn't easy to like . . . .

Oh, I like it quite readily.  Just saying.

[Ken B]

I agree.  I listened to #1 and #3, but then I just had to go back and cleanse my palette by listening to the original as played on the violin.
I really feel Busoni missed the point when writing this version, and the end result isn't easy to like, regardless of who is playing it.  Interesting though.

As if he had drained the soul of Bach from the piece and replaced it with something else? 

[Karl Henning]

I think there's some more beating in that dead horse

[Ken B]

My dead horse is panting for the results and identities! Help me put him out of his misery.

[Pim]

If I can throw in another vote just before (or rather, after) closing time (otherwise just ignore):
3: clean, controlled and for me irresistible, draws me in every time I listen
1: I read the word 'austere' a few times here, I agree, and happen to like it
2: more difficult for me to get into to (but I would have been happy to have heard it live)
4: about equal to 2 in terms of convincingness
So
3>1>>2>4

First time I really spend some time listening to this. I'm really enjoying these blind comparisons!

PS
I found this dissertation on the Bach-Busonni Chaconne interesting (apart from providing a detailed analysis, it's also trying to connect Busoni's transcription to Debussy)
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=musicstudent

[Karl Henning]

PS
I found this dissertation on the Bach-Busonni Chaconne interesting (apart from providing a detailed analysis, it's also trying to connect Busoni's transcription to Debussy)
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=musicstudent

Many thanks for this!

[Sergeant Rock]

1: I read the word 'austere' a few times here, I agree, and happen to like it

Austere works for me too, as does the slower overall tempo of 1. I didn't like 3.

1, 2, 4, 3

Sarge

[Karl Henning]

Hmm, sort of seems that if I had been abkle to listen to (1) in its entirety, I might have enjoyed it.

[Brian]

Karl, I'm going to discount your ballot due to that unfortunate mishap with the first clip. Do try to listen again, if you want and if you're interested, but here come the results...

Results
...are kinda baffling.

If we add the rankings up by a point system
1st place = 1 point
4th place = 4 points
then two recordings have 17 points and two recordings have 18 points. Which means, basically, everybody is tied.
If we report scores by average placing on ballots, they're also all basically tied.
In other words, this is the first ever totally inconclusive blind comparison?!

So I'm just gonna tell you who the pianists were.

Pianist 1: James Brawn, new CD on MSR
Pianist 2: Mikhail Pletnev, live at Carnegie Hall on DG
Pianist 3: Mikhail Pletnev, on Onyx (2013 release)
Pianist 4: Arthur Rubinstein

[North Star]

I put Pletnev first & last, I see

[king ubu]

James Brawn on a bad hair day:



Thanks for having done this - interesting for sure! Don't know Pletnev at all so far ... but I love Rubinstein (guess that was fairly easy to tell).

[Pat B]

I put Pletnev first & last, I see

I would never have guessed those were the same pianist. I'm not very familiar with Pletnev but I thought #3 fit his reputation as an eccentric. #2, not so much.

In light of the results I guess it's fitting that I couldn't decide on a ranking.

[North Star]

Don't know Pletnev at all so far ...

Start here (the latter disc is in the Argerich chamber box, all of which is superb)

[Brian]

I would never have guessed those were the same pianist. I'm not very familiar with Pletnev but I thought #3 fit his reputation as an eccentric. #2, not so much.

#2 is incredibly eccentric, but you probably have to have heard the piece a hundred times (or own the score) to realize that he modifies the material, indulges in improvisational twists, and otherwise "makes it his own" at least five or six times, particularly near the end.

#3 is also a spontaneous recording because it was a one-off, recorded in the late '90s in a single take. The idea was simply to test the piano tuning and microphones! Only recently did Pletnev approve a number of such "tests" for release as an Onyx CD.

[Mandryka]

I would never have guessed those were the same pianist. I'm not very familiar with Pletnev but I thought #3 fit his reputation as an eccentric. #2, not so much.

In light of the results I guess it's fitting that I couldn't decide on a ranking.

I don't think Pletnev intended the second recording for release at first. Pletnev is one of my very favourite pianists, though so far I haven't much enjoyed the new CD of sweepings. 

I appreciate the restraint in James Brawn's Beethoven too.