Blind comparison: Bach Cello Suites

[mc ukrneal]

Paging Mr. Laurson...

[aukhawk]

Oh well never mind - I'd still like to see those rankings and comments though - they may tweak this running order a little, but not alter the personnel.

Here goes - NB some of the quoted comments have been lifted from earlier rounds.

10th place.
G2 (26% ... mostly ranked 2nd-last or last in group)
In round 1 - "my life just improved from hearing this performance. nuff said"
However in round 2 - "sometimes really missed the cello sound and impact that could have"
and - "right now it just sounds aimless"
G2 (was D5 was A8) was
...
as many people spotted
...

Paolo Pandolfo
[asin]B0007IP5HS[/asin]
playing his viola da gamba to great effect, at least in the earlier rounds.  In fact in the previous round Pandolfo was the outright highest scorer, of all 18, and drew two "I must buy this" comments.  From hero to zero - unfortunately he makes a complete hash of the Suite 6 Prelude, probably his worst moment in the whole six suites, and the Allemande is not much better.  As a result he's outright last in this round and by a long way.  I do earnestly recommend this as an 'alternative' version of the Suites, to anyone not familiar with it - just don't judge Paolo by Suite 6 alone.
====================


9th place.
H1 (38% ... voted last - or joint last - by 4 voters out of 8 )
"the cellist feels quite at liberty to do whatever he wants"
"the interpretation is hopeless with utterly mannered agogics"
H1 (was F5 was C1) was
...
part cellist part mermaid
...

Angela East

One of the four recordings that were at the cut-off in Round 1, and scrambled over three places in Round 2 (with Beschi being the one to lose out).  If I could only have one version of the Suites, this would be the one.  Because there is variety, and unexpectedness and challenge at every turn.  However since in reality I can choose from several recordings, she usually gets passed over while I turn to such as Beschi, Pandolfo, Bylsma(1), Paternoster or Meyer.
Her 'interesting' approach - often sounding as though she's working out the fingering as she goes along - did not find much favour here.
And this cover art is another awful depiction of cello abuse (even if only simulated).  Why do they do this?
====================


8th place.
H3 (40% ... divided opinion - got a 1st and 2 2nds - but also 3 last places)
"The allemande is dragging and sentimental"
"a quieter, more introverted, introspective, understated, ascetic performance"
"very deep. total control ... i ended up hypnotized"
"one of the greatest III preludes ive ever heard. definitely wanna know who this is."
OK, just for you,   xochitl
H3 (was D1 was C5) was
...
the notorious
...

Alexander Kniazev

I can't find this as a CD on Amazon, only as downloads (from various sources).  Kniazev has limped from round to round doing just enough to stay in, but actually showed more strongly here for a while.  His lengthy treatment of the Suite 6 Allemande (and of most of the other slow movements) is surely a bit too much, half the pace of some other cellists.
====================


==6th place (joint 6th)
G1 (49% ... and voted 1st in group by 3 voters - and last by 3 as well)
"it's expressive but not in a Romanticized way. Emphases are made with dynamics more than agogics."
"the sixth suite reveals that the player is far more technically assured than Navarra, so I now tend to say Fournier."
"old, rickety, wobbly, distilled soul!"
G1 (was E6 was C2) was
...
as most of you had worked out by now
...

Pierre Fournier
[asin]B000V3OKW0[/asin]
The oldest recording in test apart from Casals of course.  It's now 55 years since this was issued.
When I was about 13, I saved up my milk-round money to buy our family's first (electric) record-player (the infamous Dansette Bermuda).  My older brother instantly bought the Fournier LP coupling the 5th and 6th Suites and played it repeatedly, along with his 3 other LPs, the Schubert String Quintet and the Dvorak and Shostakovich Cello Concertos, all featuring Rostropovich. Yes, he was a bit cello-obsessed!  This is not to my taste now, but I'm very impressed Fournier did way better than any of his near-contemporaries who mostly fell at the first hurdle - 6th place really justifying his continuing good reputation among the GMG community.
====================


==6th place (joint 6th)
G3 (49% ... frequently ranked 3rd in group)
"Technically doesn't give you that feeling that they are always in control (though some nice touches in places)"
"very well done. mirror sheen on that tone and pinpoint dexterity gotta count for something"
G3 (was F6 was C8) was
...
an unidentified cat
...

Boris Pergamenschikow
[asin]B00000JNK6[/asin]
I only included him in the test at the last minute, to make up the numbers when I belatedly threw another version out as being just too awful to include.  To my surpise Boris did really well in the earlier rounds, scoring 90% in the Prologue and topping his group in the next round.  With his straight-ahead and middling style, and given the competition in Group G, I'm now a bit surprised that he hasn't gone all the way.
====================


5th place.
H4 (53% ... voters placed it 1st, 2x 2nd and 2x 3rd)
"wispy but heavyhanded at the same time"
"favoring motion and dancing, without digging too deep into the music"
H4 (was D3 was A10) was
...
a dark horse who nearly made the final
...

Heinrich Schiff
[asin]B00004Z34I[/asin]
This 30-year-old recording has been a strong contender in every round and was a finalist until  xochitl's  late Group H vote came in.  Quite well-liked in GMG circles but I'd never listened to him before this, but he would have fitted right in, in the final.  Unlucky not to be there.
====================

[jlaurson]

Sorry... I was moving household. Back now... here, fyi, my comments and rankings (uncounted) for Group G, as far as I got:

G1: Dah.dah.dah.dah.dah. The Prelude is a joke for rhythmical feeling. I'm sorry... I'm close to disqualifying the thing just on that account. Sounds like an anesthetized sewing machine. It gets more fluid, fortunately, but boy, that really didn't bode nicely for this round. Tone isn't too nice, up on high, either... good back then, but I expect more from a cellist now.

Hello! Life is coming back to it in the Courante. Very considerably so. Thin tone, but I don't mind that... in fact, I rather appreciate it compared to the booming of, say, an awful Strad cello. In a way, this is some of the best, perhaps ideal, playing. (There are more than one ideal such ways, of course.) It shows me that the cellist CAN be an immense artist; I don't think I'm listening to a Heinrich Schiff here . Well, I know I don't, for starters, because of the sound... but more to the point because I don't think he'd be capable, even at his best of times, of such artistry. Still, not enough in any way to go on. In any case, the Gavotte isn't all that great anymore. But now I have the sneaking suspicion that I'm trouncing on what is purportedly one of my favorite performances, namely P.F.. More than a suspicion, actually. Dread realization. But I love him so, don't I? Hmmm... no, I don't, not everywhere, apparently. In the assumption, my ears want to hear lots of wonderful things now, but I know I might not be so kind if I had the suspicion it might be someone else or if it simply was strictly blind. Damned, now I can't un-do my selective looking for niceties. Oh, like that elegant swaying of the lines in Gavotte II... that *is* kind of neat. The less subtle elements, though, are, well... not subtle. I'll have to make a rule right now not to give this recording than a shared 3rd rank... at best... unless I hear ALL rubbish, which I reckon won't be the case. Let someone else love it, please. Time to move on.

G2: Hahaha! Very funny... Wwwwoom wwoom wwwoom. And then that silvery light tone above... What an instrument. But instrument or not, this is very, very well and very musically played. OK... couple high notes betray some canoodling... but I don't begrudge this artist what he's doing. A sort of wild elegance... mildly crazed... certainly fun! I will rank this highly, unless it is as bad in the other bits as G1 was good in the Courante. The recording is too resonant, too tubby for idealness... but, hey. So it won't be No.1. I remember Kuijken in this being rather on the deliberate side... so, leaving the path of not even trying to guess who is playing, my suspicions are honing in on Mr. D.B. [P.P.] Neato... if so, his is an account I don't have, and it's good to know what treasures are out there. Incidentally Allemande isn't up to the same exalted level of the Prelude, but still very good. Courante maybe a bit too spidery. Not my No.1 choices, this won't be, but with good Gavottes (and yes, indeed!), maybe no.2? >1, 3, 4
Edit: But goshdarnit... there are places where it sounds absolutely IDENTICAL to D.B..

[I

G3: A step down after that amazing Prelude just now... bit aimless, bit effortful, bit wheezy. More fluid than G1 and less exacerbating but somewhere lurks less talent. Settles with a very fine Allemande. A "dot all the i's, cross all the t's" performance that is, except for the heavy close-up-mike sniffing, a fine thing, indeed... but leaves me wanting so much more, knowing that there is so much more to find. I am itching for the fast forward button. If this doesn't do something really special, I might get to lift G1 above it, without feeling too guilty.  Courante continues nicely, if more or less in the same style. Obviously able, obviously nimble... This strikes me the sort of thing Zuill Bailey might turn out, except a little more tasteful and a little less overtly impressive in tone (which isn't actually a bad thing). Neither bad nor great... nor even lukewarm enough to be bad. Tough one. <2, 4, =1... 3?

G4: Resonant. Too tubby for me... but not outright bad; not a soup, granted. No, actually that's not grounds to downgrade. It's a bit G3-ish, but better, more tasteful. >3

[xochitl]

oh snap! i totally failed to recognize Schiff.  guess that's a good thing this being blind and all? 

[Pat B]

Angela East
If I could only have one version of the Suites, this would be the one.  Because there is variety, and unexpectedness and challenge at every turn.  However since in reality I can choose from several recordings, she usually gets passed over while I turn to such as Beschi, Pandolfo, Bylsma(1), Paternoster or Meyer.

Interesting. I liked it better than most, but for me it would be an alternative view, not the "desert island" choice.

Aside from the cello abuse, I really don't like that typeface.

[aukhawk]

Thanks  jlaurson  - well I knew you probably had better things to do right now!    I'm sorry if it seemed I was rushing you.

I was thinking your rankings might at least resolve the tie for 6th place between Fournier G1 and Pergamenschikow G3 - but no, it seems your ranking doesn't split them either!
Though on countback - Pergamenschikow was much the stronger in previous rounds, whereas Fournier only just squeaked through to this round.  Interesting how many of this last 10 are, to my ears anyway, somewhat similar in tone and general approach - more similar than they are different let's say.  Most of the really distinctive renditions already gone before we got to here.

Interesting too, that your opinions of G2 and G4 are right against the trend set by everyone else who heard Group G.  Poor old Pandolfo (G2) notched up 5x 4th places and a 5th, not loved at all, and that after being top scorer and much praised in the previous round.  And G4 won this group easily with all 1sts and 2nds - well, until your assessment came along anyway.  FWIW I agree pretty much with your "a bit G3-ish, but better, more tasteful".

[mszczuj]

This time it was rather obvious and clear for me so I prefer to vote immediately before I will start to change my mind:

X4>X3>X2>X1

[aukhawk]

Good start!  Thanks.

Everybody, don't think you have to rush, I expect this to run for at least 2 weeks or more.

[Jay F]

X3>X4>X2>X1

[aukhawk]

Thanks Jay.
Hm, the way this is heading, this result could discredit blind comparisons for ever more!    What do you think,  :premont: ? 

Can I suggest, since we're nearing the end, that everyone keeps their votes/comments in the open?  A sequence of apparently blank posts makes it rather uninteresting for the casual visitor.  Of course, if you want to say "I know who this is, it's XXX" - then by all means do so, but white it out.  Otherwise, let's have the dog see the rabbit.

Have a good Easter, everyone.  I might break out my favourite version of the St Matthew Passion (Suzuki).

[prémont]

Hm, the way this is heading, this result could discredit blind comparisons for ever more!    What do you think,  :premont: ? 

I think blind comparison is a good way to find out, whether the  different interpretations are as good as we imagine. But one always run the risk of recognizing the player too fast, and being unable to make an objective judgement.

If blind comparison included more unknown recordings, we might reduce this risk.

[Jay F]

If blind comparison included more unknown recordings, we might reduce this risk.

Do more people want to discover new versions they might then purchase or see how their current favorites stack up? I'm probably in the latter camp, though in this comparison, I only have one version, Fournier's. Some versions of things were so good, I didn't look for alternates as I was buying classical music for the first time in the 1980s. Fournier's Cello Suites were among them. I think I voted it #1 in one round, but it was eliminated.

I think the truth about the Cello Suites for me is that I don't like them enough to own more than one version. But I was satisfied with the first version of most Bach I bought back in the '80s, the exception being the Brandenburgs. But though I bought ten or more versions, none pleased me as much as Trevor Pinnock's until I discovered the Akademie fur Alte Musik Berlin's versions whenever it was they came out.

I've consumed many, many versions of Mahler and Beethoven, however. When we do blind comparisons there, I'm more interested in finding out how others agree with my favorites rather than finding new versions to purchase. Within Mahler, I have purchasing weirdness, too. I can listen to infinite versions, it seems, of #3, #7, and #2. I don't wish to listen to anything but my single favorites of #6 and #9 (both Bernstein, CBS). #1, #4, #5, and #8 I just don't listen to that much at all anymore.

[aukhawk]

Yes I think a very interesting thing is how well (or not) the established GMG favourite versions stand up.  By the last round (10 left in) it seemed to me to be stacked with versions that I would consider to be 'straight down the middle' - whereas many of the GMG favourites I find are a bit more unorthodox, in one way or another.
I thought Fournier did remarkably well, considering the age of the recording and the reputations of some of the others around him - fully justifying his own continuing good reputation.

Hm well this comparison included 4 recordings that were unknown or at least not, I think, identified by anybody - one of which is a finalist.

[prémont]

Hm well this comparison included 4 recordings that were unknown or at least not, I think, identified by anybody - one of which is a finalist.

Four out of thirty isn´t that much, and it is of course more difficult to identify a musician, when you just hear a small bit of the recording, and this is obviously why it was difficult to identify the musicians particularly in the preliminary round but even in the first round proper. I had more luck in the second round, where I think I recognized all except Pergamenschikow (whom I did not think of at all - he is obviously better than I recalled) and the mysterious G4 = X3, whom I ought to know - considering the excellence of the interpretation. It is a version I intend to purchase if possible, if I do not own it already.

[kishnevi]

Fourth place
X2
Third place
X4
Second place
X1
First place
X3

[prémont]

X3>>X1>X2>>>>X4

which means X3 first place and X4 last place.

[Jay F]

Three of us so far have liked X3 most.

[jlaurson]

x1 > x4 > x2 & x3


----------------------------------------- commentary ---------------------------------

We have successfully filtered all the ones with character out of this contest, which made this final the most boring round by FAR. There's quality left, of course, even tremendously so... but also tedious sameishness. Very tempted to place them all last... except it wouldn't make a difference from placing them all first. So I must distinguish. ||| Upon more kind-eared hearing, that's not fair. There's a decent amount of difference in instruments and approaches here... even if a full-bodied direct post-classical/romantic interpretation is prevalent.


X1

1) Didn't react well to this on a grumpy morning and wrote unkind things about it... partly because I'm annoyed with the whole group. That doesn't hold up on second listening, because this is extremely fine playing. Not wayward, bit mainstreamish, but delicious in every touch. Bit present in the acoustic and SQ, but that can hardly be held against it.

2) Could be just a hint lighter in the Courante... to provide a little variety in texture. This is gorgeous-toned throughout... which is also something that made me impatient in this whole group, X2's inclusion notwithstanding.

3) Thick and wonderful and just not my thing today.


No.1

X2

1) Low and raspy (which gives away the instrument) and also overtly impressive, which isn't always what I like. Maybe I should turn down the volume a little. Reedy and hollow... fine but not thrilling.

2) Very pleasing first impression. An element of elegance I'd been missing on a cursory run through the finalists.

3)

No.3

X3

1) Chameleon. Never even noticed it. Beautiful. A little boring... not all *that* lyrical.

2) Opening notes of the Courante ripped off the instrument; one of the most distinctive openings of that particular bit. Forced vigor. Polar opposite of, say, Pandolfini or Cocset.

3) Resonant acoustic... certainly lightness I like... not matched entirely (though largely) by lightness of playing.

I wonder how the elegant Klinger would have fared in this final... just a bland version of X1 or something special?

No.3

X4

1) Little extra touches, little flourishes; digs deep... resonant, very varnished sound. Barenboim in Beethoven Symphonies sounds like this.

2) Notable, slow, fine... but maybe a bit very much on the slow side.

3) Exclamation mark at the end. Not every-day Bach, but special.

No.2

[kishnevi]

Jens, I quite understand the feeling of sameishness.  That was  my initial response, and it took me a few times to figure out my vote.  And even then, I was constantly changing my mind about whether X2 or X4 was my least favorite, and whether I liked X1 or X3 more...

[aukhawk]

Thankyou Jeffrey, :premont: and Jens -
well, the writing is on the wall but with a possible 7 more votes out there I'll let this run for another week before setting a deadline.

Although the result will hinge only on these final scores (unless there is a tie), I have been collating the scores for earlier rounds as well but whatever way you cut it - counting all 4 rounds, or the last 3 excluding the preliminary (probably the fairest way) - the result (so far) would be the same.

We have successfully filtered all the ones with character out of this contest, which made this final the most boring round by FAR.

Indeed and see also, the final round and overall winner in the recent Schubert String Quintet blind comparison - a similar thing happened.