Bartok's piano concertos

[sidoze]

Anda would be my first choice, too. If you are considering incomplete sets at all, I would get this one:

conductor isn't up for it IMO

[Kovacevich] brutalizes the music.

agreed.

Well, as long as we're singling individual recordings out, Katchen/Kertesz was my imprint recording of the 3rd, one of my favorite recordings of anything.  They are very poetic in the middle movement and thrilling in the outer movements.

That was my favourite performance of the 3rd too.

[BorisG]

That Argerich and Dutoit recording probably would be a very good recording, if it was one's listening debut for these Prokofiev and Bartok works. Laid back, no edge, good sound.

In the past I have enjoyed Prokofiev and Bartok from Argerich, and Bartok from Dutoit. With this effort, no sale.

[George]

Just read through the thread. People still feel the same (negatively) about Kovacevich?

[amw]

I like Kovacevich personally. I don't remember why.

[George]

I like Kovacevich personally. I don't remember why.

I am listening to his set now, comparing it to Anda. My first impression is that Kovacevich benefits from much better, clearer sound and the performance is more energetic.

[MusicTurner]

Kocsis/Fischer, including Kocsis/Lehel in the 1st;
Anda/Fricsay;
Farnadi/Scherchen in 2+3;
Richter/Svetlanov in 2;
Argerich in 3 (Vedernikov or Dutoit)

Ditta B/Serly in 3: very much past her prime.

[Jo498]

To clarify Kocsis/Lehel is a different recording (of 1+2 only, AFAIK) on a different label (hungaroton, later Capriccio) from the early 1970s whereas Kocsis/Fischer has everything including the Scherzo and Rhapsody an recorded in the mid 1980s.

I also remember Kovacevich/Davis as very good. I really should listen to all of my recordings, but apparently I liked them enough in the past to keep. I also have Anda/Fricsay, Pollini/Abbado (1+2). And a few #3 in some pianist boxes.

[DavidW]

I am listening to his set now, comparing it to Anda. My first impression is that Kovacevich benefits from much better, clearer sound and the performance is more energetic.

I'll have to give it a listen.  I only listen to Anda.  I was surprised to see that I didn't post on this thread.  Maybe I was too busy (that was when I got my first job).

[MusicTurner]

To clarify Kocsis/Lehel is a different recording (of 1+2 only, AFAIK) on a different label (hungaroton, later Capriccio) from the early 1970s whereas Kocsis/Fischer has everything including the Scherzo and Rhapsody an recorded in the mid 1980s.

I also remember Kovacevich/Davis as very good. I really should listen to all of my recordings, but apparently I liked them enough in the past to keep. I also have Anda/Fricsay, Pollini/Abbado (1+2). And a few #3 in some pianist boxes.

Yes, Kocsis/Lehel in 1+2 has some good accents in the 1st Concerto's 1st Movement, that I've never heard elsewhere, not in the Fischer set either.

[Todd]

Relistened to the recordings, and the performances become increasingly unsatisfactory with each concerto.  The First is fine, with Kovecevich's hard-hitting style, and Davis' accompaniment sounding fine.  The Second is a bit more intense than I prefer, and the Third is just too brutal for the music.  Kocsis and Schiff are my go-tos now.

[amw]

I have Kocsis Philips, Kovacevich, Anda DG & Neos, Jandó, plus Pollini 1+2 and some isolated recordings of 3. I presumably thought all of them were good enough to keep at some point (something I evidently didn't think about the Boulez multi-pianist set, or Bavouzet, or Sandór, or maybe those just slipped through the cracks). I will listen to all of them in close proximity someday and see if I can identify any major drawbacks. But thanks to his very detailed interpretive markings Bartók is quite easy to interpret correctly; it's something I have always appreciated about his music.

[DavidW]

I tried out the Kovacevich... not a fan.  It is the microphone sounds like it was placed between his hands on the piano.  Very aggressive and overly bright.  And since Kovacevich is already an aggressive pianist (just check out his Beethoven PS cycle) it doesn't do any favors.  Unlike the rest of you I don't even like the SQ for the orchestra.  The Anda/Fricsay has better bass and instrument separation and performance wise is assertive but more musical than Kovacevich/Davis.  I turned back to that.  It is my fav (A/F).  I'm not fixated on that recording btw.  I mostly turn to solo piano and chamber music for Bartok.

[George]

I tried out the Kovacevich... not a fan.  It is the microphone sounds like it was placed between his hands on the piano.  Very aggressive and overly bright.  And since Kovacevich is already an aggressive pianist (just check out his Beethoven PS cycle) it doesn't do any favors.  Unlike the rest of you I don't even like the SQ for the orchestra.  The Anda/Fricsay has better bass and instrument separation and performance wise is assertive but more musical than Kovacevich/Davis.  I turned back to that.  It is my fav (A/F).  I'm not fixated on that recording btw.  I mostly turn to solo piano and chamber music for Bartok.

Well said. And for me, a good argument for listening to entire movement when comparing two recordings, rather than short (60 second) samples, for in short bursts I like Kova/Davis a lot. After a whole movement, it gets a bit much, especially in the 3rd PC, as Todd pointed out.

[prémont]

I find Kocisis (with Fischer) a bit hard-hitting too, but it may be the miking like in Kovacevich's Beethoven sonatas, which suffer from excessive close miking. Schiff strikes the ideal balance between the lyrical and the more percussive sections IMO, as do Anda and Sandor.

[Jo498]

I agree that the sound quality is not the greatest for Kovacevich/Davis. No space. However, I don't find it too brittle, unpleasant or percussive. (Whereas unfortunately some of his EMI LvB sonatas tend to that, I had 3 or 4 singles of that series and got rid of all but one, the 1970s Philips Beethoven has better SQ and is also less brutal.)
Afterwards I listened to Pollini/Abbado in 1 and this is even more aggressive (appropriately so) but the sound is better, although still rather dry.

There must be a recording or more from the last ~20 years in really good sound, I guess.

[staxomega]

I find Kocisis (with Fischer) a bit hard-hitting too, but it may be the miking like in Kovacevich's Beethoven sonatas, which suffer from excessive close miking. Schiff strikes the ideal balance between the lyrical and the more percussive sections IMO, as do Anda and Sandor.

Interestingly his Onyx recording of Diabelli Variations made way after either Beethoven Piano Sonata cycle is also rather closely miked. But it seems to work wonders in here, it's one of the most hard hitting Diabellis I've heard, and not in a bad way ala monochromatic/uniformity of approach of Pollini.

Variation 17 for instance and that aggressive left hand playing and the clear delineation with the right makes for the most thrilling version I've ever heard.

[Mirror Image]

Just read through the thread. People still feel the same (negatively) about Kovacevich?

He's not a top choice for me as I don't think Colin Davis was the right man for the job, IMHO. I do think Kovacevich is an excellent pianist, but it seems the recording is a mismatch and topples as a result. Some favorites in these works (in no particular order): Schiff/Fischer, Ashkenazy/Solti and Anda/Fricsay. I also liked the Pollini/Abbado recording of the 1st and 2nd PC on DG. I should revisit the Kocsis/Fischer recordings as I recall I had mixed feelings about these performances and it's strange as I absolutely think Kocsis is a first-rate pianist, but something just didn't seem quite connected to me in these performances. I LOVE Kocsis' recordings of the solo piano music, however.

[Jo498]

I actually listened to all of my single discs of the concertos now (disregarding a few #3 in historical boxes/anthologies and although I could not be bothered to listen again at the end to the Kovacevich I had started with) I also tend to put them a bit behind the others I have.
(Although I still don't quite share the criticism above about the SQ of Kovacevich/Davis, or at least did not find this too bothersome.)

Anda/Fricsay holds up very well, they miraculously manage to make the music sound BOTH "weird" (esp. 1+2) and natural and the sound is good enough not to get in the way of musical enjoyment. I mentioned already Pollini/Abbado, superb but a bit "cool", the "weirdness" has become normalized to some extent. Kocsis I have mixed with the old 1+2 with Lehel when the pianist was about 20 and #3 with Fischer (from the mid 1980s). Also very good although the sound on the Capriccio hybrid of the early recording is a bit strange (adds to the weirdness factor).

[Todd]

Bad Boy Barto's Bartok!  Yes!!  I do enjoy me a good Barto recording.  He's perhaps my favorite trainwreck pianist.  I come to every one of his post-EMI recordings with the full expectation that his eccentricities will distort the music, perhaps pervert it, but also that he will deliver technically accomplished and usually tonally alluring playing that brings a few unique traits of the music to the fore.  I also expect slow tempi.  So slow.  This last trait does in fact come to pass here.  Comparing the timings to my still co-reference Kocsis/Fischer recording, Barto/Eschenbach come in at about a minute slower per movement on average, with the slow movement of the First taking a couple minutes longer and the slow movement in the Third taking about four-and-a-half minutes longer.  Time to get to it.

The First starts with dark, ominous, weighty lower register playing from Barto.  Pianistic bite and edge are in short supply until about two hundred seconds in, and then it is fleeting.  In the middle section, the playing slows down and becomes almost a caricature of the music.  The second movement, so very slow, distends and distorts the solo part and mixes that with a folksy orchestral part.  The engineers opted to boost the piano and cymbals, and sometimes Barto sort of meanders off, though he finds his way back, and he plays a mean accompaniment in some of the latter parts.  The slow end of the movement and transition to the final movement, where recorded perspective shifts toward something more recessed, finds Barto displaying virtuosic chops, and there's ample color and a sense of lightness in some passages that's very folk and dance music oriented. 

The Second starts too slowly, plain and simple.  This concerto is all about showy virtuosity, and while Barto brings that before too long, it just doesn't rev enough for the first couple minutes.  The trade off is clarity, so there's that.  As the movement moves along, Eschenbach's attention to detail and the orchestral color really bring it to life, with the folk music component again more evident than in some recordings.  The string opening of the Adagio sounds gorgeous, and as Barto enters, slow and ominous and almost ridiculously heavy, he offers a maximum contrast, and one can hear music that later reappeared in the MSPC.  The Presto section whirls nearly uncontrollably, before galloping and galumphing.  The second Adagio section is slow but tense as all get out, thank you.   The final movement, a bit slower than some others, nonetheless has ample verve and playing to the gallery excitement and caps off a version that more than makes up for the unpromising open.

The Third is where the most severe tempo tomfoolery occurs, but it is also the one most apt to survive the slow treatment intact.  The opening movement immediately demonstrates that.  Barto goes slow, bringing the orchestra with him, and the first minute is very fine.  After the long and kind of slow trills, Barto opts for a tempo and style that sort of evokes Brahms and does indeed sound too stodgy.  But also, not quite stodgy enough.  The Adagio religioso is ridiculously slow, with Eschenbach laying the groundwork and aiding and abetting at every turn.  Barto, when exposed and alone, sometimes evokes an utter simplicity of sound and style that nearly rivals the best that Marie-Luise Hinrichs and Michel Block can summon.  He brings time to a stand-still, holding on to notes, letting them trail off into the great mystery of oblivion.  Too purple?  OK, he plays real slow and it sounds real purdy.  Better?  As the movement inches forward, Barto builds to a mixing desk enhanced climax that thunders and slowly pulverizes before switching to slow, elevated playing.  The final movement has more pep and doesn't deviate too much from standard timings.  The clarity and the folksiness of it all work nicely and the whole thing, even with its enlarged proportions works well. 

This un-reference recording more or less aligns with expectations.  Barto and Eschenbach have performed these concertos together for years – they also recorded the Second years ago for EMI – and their coordination and experience shows.  Eschenbach is a fine Bartokian, and his command of the orchestral parts is quite fine, and he tailors the music to the soloist's requirements as appropriate.  When Barto takes center stage, the results, precisely as expected, are mixed.  Sometimes heavy-handed to the point of vulgarity, sometimes lithe and flexible, sometimes brazenly virtuosic, sometimes delicately nuanced, sometimes self-effacing, he's all over the place.  And that will occur in single movements.  This recording does not induce the same aural rubbernecking his massively sluggish Schubert and Brahms piano concerto trainwrecks do, and it never leads to materially raised eyebrows, but it does fall outside the norm in terms of style.