Mozart piano sonatas

[Mandryka]

I'm getting towards the end of my comparison, the first round of it anyway as I'll still have a number of cycles to listen to progressively after that.

After the combined K.475/457 versions, I listened to a few versions of each of the two works recorded separately. And they were all forgettable at most, except one version of K.457, by Annie Fischer (live in London, 1971, BBC Legends 4166). It's a very particular version, Fischer's piano is as usual very massive, romantic, powerful, schumannian... But it's also incredibly elegant, insightful, generous and spontaneous at the same time. I still rank it behind Moravec, Virsaladze and Van Immerseel, but would still recommend it among first choices.
No other recording of K.475 struck me as really unavoidable, even Edwin Fischer (but I only heard his 1941 version, couldn't find his 1947 recording apparently).

In K.533/494, the choice is not as varied as with most other sonatas but there are still very strong versions. But I still find a variety of issues even with the best of them. Peter Rösel (1982), for instance, plays it wonderfully, I mean, it is one of the most technically perfect Mozart performances on record, and it is detailed, subtle, and with gorgeous sound. It just sounds lacking a little spontaneity in the end. His sense of perfection is one of the strengths of Rösel, of course, but the result sounds just slightly too formal for my taste in Mozart.
Mikhaïl Pletnev's recording for Melodiya (1984) is very different, very personal, no other recording compares to it, and it is captivating, fascinating. But originality also leads to a few weaknesses, the result is original, creative, overwhelming, but it is not really Mozart anymore you're listening to. I would rank it as a really essential, indispensable version, but it can't be said a "first choice".
In the end, two versions are my personal nominees for best version. Sviatoslav Richter's live in 1989, in Como, is a wonderful performance, one of the top-notch Mozart performances by Richter. I still have to hear his 1966 Prague version though, I had forgotten it. And the other "best" version in my opinion is Jos van Immerseel (1996). Again, as in K.457/475, I was unsure about my fond memory of it. In the end, this opinion is entirely justified, it is a gorgeous and incredibly detailed and subtle recording. Every aspect of the sonata is rendered with colours, expressiveness, tenderness, but all contrasts are kept strong, nothing sounds mannered, on the contrary, the sense of quasi-improvisation is kept all along.
In addition to Richter 1966, I just saw I had forgotten Gilels 1972. Well, that's something I'll straighten out shortly.

The short K.545 allows for a speedy comparison, it's quite nice after K.533, which allows for the longest performances among Mozart sonatas. After hearing a half dozen, I'm sure Lili Kraus, at least, will be among my favourites.

Updated list of favourites :

Sonata 1 (K.279): Lili Kraus (1954), Daniel Barenboim (1984-85)
Sonata 2 (K.280): Lili Kraus (1954), Clara Haskil (1961)
Sonata 3 (K.281): Lili Kraus (1954), Emil Gilels (1970), Daniel Barenboim (1984-85)
Sonata 4 (K.282): Samuil Feinberg (1953), Lili Kraus (1954), Sviatoslav Richter (1989, live), Andreas Staier (2003), Elisso Virsaladze (2013)
Sonata 5 (K.283): Lili Kraus (1954), Sviatoslav Richter (1966, live), Dezső Ránki (1978-79), Dezső Ránki (1997, live)
Sonata 6 (K.284): Daniel Barenboim (1984-1985)
Sonata 7 (K.309): Sviatoslav Richter (1968, live in Prague), Daniel Barenboim (1984-85)
Sonata 8 (K.310): Dinu Lipatti (1950, studio in Geneva + live in Besançon), Emil Gilels (1971, live in Ossiach), Alexei Lubimov (198?), Sviatoslav Richter (1989, live in London)
Sonata 9 (K.311): Lili Kraus (1954), Dezső Ránki (1978-78)
Sonata 10 (K.330): Walter Gieseking (1953), Krystian Zimerman (live in Vienna, 2008)
Sonata 11 (K.331): Walter Gieseking (1953), Lili Kraus (1954)
Sonata 12 (K.332): Artur Schnabel (1946), Lili Kraus (1954), Andreas Staier (2004)
Sonata 13 (K.333): Lili Kraus (1954), Sviatoslav Richter (live in Prague, 1966), Ivan Moravec (1982), Vladimir Horowitz (1987, studio), Vladimir Horowitz (1987, live in Munich)
Fantasy K.475 + Sonata 14 (K.457): Ivan Moravec (1967), Elisso Virsaladze (live in Munich, 1995), Jos van Immerseel (1996)
K.475 recorded alone: -
K.457 recorded alone: Annie Fischer (live in London, 1971)
Sonata 15 (K.533/494): Sviatoslav Richter (live in Como, 1989), Jos van Immerseel (1996)
Sonata 16 (K.545): Lili Kraus (1954)
Sonata 17 (K.570):
Sonata 18 (K.576):

You MUST hear Yudina playing 533/494



As far as 545 goes, the best is without a doubt Georg Kreisler

http://www.youtube.com/v/AY7ldEsO-r8

Or if that's not what you're looking for there's a very early and very jazzy one from Gulda (nothing to do with the DG one) If you hear it let me know what you think of his ornamentation.

[Purusha]

I don't know if it was mentioned before, but recently i've been enjoying a set by a pianist i never heard before, Jean-Bernard Pommier, from what i understand a student of Yves Nat. I find the playing to be quite exquisite:

http://www.youtube.com/v/wZSqxEMjajA

[Cosi bel do]

Mandryka, thanks for reminding me about Yudina's version. I have it in the Yudina Foundation "MY Legacy", incorrectly tagged as K.494/516, I therefore had forgotten about it ! I'll listen to it shortly, along with the Gilels and Richter versions I also missed.

About Pletnev, yes, it is certainly him, his playing is quite recognizable, and these recordings were quite widely distributed on LP too.

Currently reviewing my impressions on K.545...

[George]

The short K.545 allows for a speedy comparison, it's quite nice after K.533, which allows for the longest performances among Mozart sonatas. After hearing a half dozen, I'm sure Lili Kraus, at least, will be among my favourites.

Updated list of favourites :

Sonata 1 (K.279): Lili Kraus (1954), Daniel Barenboim (1984-85)
Sonata 2 (K.280): Lili Kraus (1954), Clara Haskil (1961)
Sonata 3 (K.281): Lili Kraus (1954), Emil Gilels (1970), Daniel Barenboim (1984-85)
Sonata 4 (K.282): Samuil Feinberg (1953), Lili Kraus (1954), Sviatoslav Richter (1989, live), Andreas Staier (2003), Elisso Virsaladze (2013)
Sonata 5 (K.283): Lili Kraus (1954), Sviatoslav Richter (1966, live), Dezső Ránki (1978-79), Dezső Ránki (1997, live)
Sonata 6 (K.284): Daniel Barenboim (1984-1985)
Sonata 7 (K.309): Sviatoslav Richter (1968, live in Prague), Daniel Barenboim (1984-85)
Sonata 8 (K.310): Dinu Lipatti (1950, studio in Geneva + live in Besançon), Emil Gilels (1971, live in Ossiach), Alexei Lubimov (198?), Sviatoslav Richter (1989, live in London)
Sonata 9 (K.311): Lili Kraus (1954), Dezső Ránki (1978-78)
Sonata 10 (K.330): Walter Gieseking (1953), Krystian Zimerman (live in Vienna, 2008)
Sonata 11 (K.331): Walter Gieseking (1953), Lili Kraus (1954)
Sonata 12 (K.332): Artur Schnabel (1946), Lili Kraus (1954), Andreas Staier (2004)
Sonata 13 (K.333): Lili Kraus (1954), Sviatoslav Richter (live in Prague, 1966), Ivan Moravec (1982), Vladimir Horowitz (1987, studio), Vladimir Horowitz (1987, live in Munich)
Fantasy K.475 + Sonata 14 (K.457): Ivan Moravec (1967), Elisso Virsaladze (live in Munich, 1995), Jos van Immerseel (1996)
K.475 recorded alone: -
K.457 recorded alone: Annie Fischer (live in London, 1971)
Sonata 15 (K.533/494): Sviatoslav Richter (live in Como, 1989), Jos van Immerseel (1996)
Sonata 16 (K.545): Lili Kraus (1954)
Sonata 17 (K.570):
Sonata 18 (K.576):

I am loving how your survey underscores just how great that 1954 Kraus set. 

[Cosi bel do]

On K.545, I'll be short, as the sonata is. In addition to the wonderful Lili Kraus (1954) version, Dezso Ranki (1978-79) gives a perfect account of this sonata, with all the simplicity, spontaneity and charm needed. Sviatoslav Richter (live in Prague, 1956 and live in London, 1989) also gives two of his really perfect (or almost perfect) readings, full of life and ideas, without ever losing the global form and tension of sight. Astonishing live performances.
These are the three best I heard. Of course there are other excellent versions, mostly Gieseking's (1953), Pires's (1974), Jos van Immerseel's (1996)... But there also are horrible renditions, and this time Gould is not alone, Gulda (1950s) being a serious contender for the most ridiculous and presumptuous mozartian recording ever (and of course Würtz is as bad as ever). Barenboim and Uchida also disappointed me, these are two contrasting versions that fail for the same reason, playing this sonata with too much unequivocal prettiness, as if Mozart had specifically composed it for the sake of making our waiting time on the phone more comfortable (a very debatable success).

I had three versions of K.533/494 left, by three of my favourite pianists.
Sviatoslav Richter (live in Prague, 1956) is one of his best Mozart recordings, clearly, it is so perfect I don't even know what to say about it.
Maria Yudina (1964) is really interesting, very particular and personal, actually reminding Pletnev a lot even in the way she tries to reinvent each phrase, with many changes in pace and phrasing. Not ideal at all, with many technical issues (from the pianist AND the engineering) but still really captivating and essential.
Emil Gilels (live in Salzburg, 1972) gives a very gilelsian performance, with a very neat vision of Mozart, not very highly spirited but incredibly subtle and beautiful in its formal and technical elegant perfection. A great achievement, though it is a little less spontaneous than the very best I heard. I rank Gilels just behind both Richter live versions, and Immerseel's. Equal to Pletnev and Rösel, then.

Updated list of favourites :

Sonata 1 (K.279): Lili Kraus (1954), Daniel Barenboim (1984-85)
Sonata 2 (K.280): Lili Kraus (1954), Clara Haskil (1961)
Sonata 3 (K.281): Lili Kraus (1954), Emil Gilels (1970), Daniel Barenboim (1984-85)
Sonata 4 (K.282): Samuil Feinberg (1953), Lili Kraus (1954), Sviatoslav Richter (live in London, 1989), Andreas Staier (2003), Elisso Virsaladze (2013)
Sonata 5 (K.283): Lili Kraus (1954), Sviatoslav Richter (live in Salzburg, 1966), Dezső Ránki (1978-79), Dezső Ránki (1997, live)
Sonata 6 (K.284): Daniel Barenboim (1984-1985)
Sonata 7 (K.309): Sviatoslav Richter (1968, live in Prague), Daniel Barenboim (1984-85)
Sonata 8 (K.310): Dinu Lipatti (1950, studio in Geneva + live in Besançon), Emil Gilels (1971, live in Ossiach), Alexei Lubimov (198?), Sviatoslav Richter (1989, live in London)
Sonata 9 (K.311): Lili Kraus (1954), Dezső Ránki (1978-78)
Sonata 10 (K.330): Walter Gieseking (1953), Krystian Zimerman (live in Vienna, 2008)
Sonata 11 (K.331): Walter Gieseking (1953), Lili Kraus (1954)
Sonata 12 (K.332): Artur Schnabel (1946), Lili Kraus (1954), Andreas Staier (2004)
Sonata 13 (K.333): Lili Kraus (1954), Sviatoslav Richter (live in Prague, 1966), Ivan Moravec (1982), Vladimir Horowitz (1987, studio), Vladimir Horowitz (1987, live in Munich)
Fantasy K.475 + Sonata 14 (K.457): Ivan Moravec (1967), Elisso Virsaladze (live in Munich, 1995), Jos van Immerseel (1996)
K.475 recorded alone: -
K.457 recorded alone: Annie Fischer (live in London, 1971)
Sonata 15 (K.533/494): Sviatoslav Richter (live in Prague, 1956), Sviatoslav Richter (live in Como, 1989), Jos van Immerseel (1996)
Sonata 16 (K.545): Lili Kraus (1954), Sviatoslav Richter (live in Prague, 1956), Dezső Ránki (1978-78), Sviatoslav Richter (live in London, 1989)
Sonata 17 (K.570):
Sonata 18 (K.576):

[Jay F]

Sonata 12 (K.332): Artur Schnabel (1946)

Did Schnabel record all of Mozart's Sonatas, on very old LPs, perhaps? My parents had them, IIRC, and they were on EMI. But I might be confusing him with Gieseking.

I'm listening to Schnabel's PC 20 right now.

Thanks for this survey.

[Cosi bel do]

I am loving how your survey underscores just how great that 1954 Kraus set.

Yes, she almost never fails to be among the very best interpreters of each sonata ! Captivating performances, really. And the Erato set has a gorgeous sound.

Yes,

Did Schnabel record all of Mozart's Sonatas, on very old LPs, perhaps? My parents had them, IIRC, and they were on EMI. But I might be confusing him with Gieseking.

I'm listening to Schnabel's PC 20 right now.

Thanks for this survey.

You're welcome. No, Schnabel did not record all Mozart sonatas, and yes, you must confuse him with Gieseking, his HMV/EMI cycle is one of the most widely distributed ever (and still one of the best, IMHO).

[Jay F]

Yes,
You're welcome. No, Schnabel did not record all Mozart sonatas, and yes, you must confuse him with Gieseking, his HMV/EMI cycle is one of the most widely distributed ever (and still one of the best, IMHO).

I wish I'd bought Giesking's Mozart on CD before it went OOP. Who knew?

[Cosi bel do]

I wish I'd bought Giesking's Mozart on CD before it went OOP. Who knew?

Well, I wouldn't worry. I'm sure Warner has a Gieseking box with remastered sound in mind, it will go along well with the other ex-EMI sets (Nat, Cortot, Kraus, etc.). It's just a question of patience.
(And if you are not patient, there are two Andromeda sets with these Mozart/Gieseking recordings, the sound is exactly the same than on older EMI sets.)

[Mandryka]

On K.545, I'll be short, as the sonata is. In addition to the wonderful Lili Kraus (1954) version, Dezso Ranki (1978-79) gives a perfect account of this sonata, with all the simplicity, spontaneity and charm needed. Sviatoslav Richter (live in Prague, 1956 and live in London, 1989) also gives two of his really perfect (or almost perfect) readings, full of life and ideas, without ever losing the global form and tension of sight. Astonishing live performances.
These are the three best I heard. Of course there are other excellent versions, mostly Gieseking's (1953), Pires's (1974), Jos van Immerseel's (1996)... But there also are horrible renditions, and this time Gould is not alone, Gulda (1950s) being a serious contender for the most ridiculous and presumptuous mozartian recording ever (and of course Würtz is as bad as ever). Barenboim and Uchida also disappointed me, these are two contrasting versions that fail for the same reason, playing this sonata with too much unequivocal prettiness, as if Mozart had specifically composed it for the sake of making our waiting time on the phone more comfortable (a very debatable success).

I had three versions of K.533/494 left, by three of my favourite pianists.
Sviatoslav Richter (live in Prague, 1956) is one of his best Mozart recordings, clearly, it is so perfect I don't even know what to say about it.
Maria Yudina (1964) is really interesting, very particular and personal, actually reminding Pletnev a lot even in the way she tries to reinvent each phrase, with many changes in pace and phrasing. Not ideal at all, with many technical issues (from the pianist AND the engineering) but still really captivating and essential.
Emil Gilels (live in Salzburg, 1972) gives a very gilelsian performance, with a very neat vision of Mozart, not very highly spirited but incredibly subtle and beautiful in its formal and technical elegant perfection. A great achievement, though it is a little less spontaneous than the very best I heard. I rank Gilels just behind both Richter live versions, and Immerseel's. Equal to Pletnev and Rösel, then.

Updated list of favourites :

Sonata 1 (K.279): Lili Kraus (1954), Daniel Barenboim (1984-85)
Sonata 2 (K.280): Lili Kraus (1954), Clara Haskil (1961)
Sonata 3 (K.281): Lili Kraus (1954), Emil Gilels (1970), Daniel Barenboim (1984-85)
Sonata 4 (K.282): Samuil Feinberg (1953), Lili Kraus (1954), Sviatoslav Richter (live in London, 1989), Andreas Staier (2003), Elisso Virsaladze (2013)
Sonata 5 (K.283): Lili Kraus (1954), Sviatoslav Richter (live in Salzburg, 1966), Dezső Ránki (1978-79), Dezső Ránki (1997, live)
Sonata 6 (K.284): Daniel Barenboim (1984-1985)
Sonata 7 (K.309): Sviatoslav Richter (1968, live in Prague), Daniel Barenboim (1984-85)
Sonata 8 (K.310): Dinu Lipatti (1950, studio in Geneva + live in Besançon), Emil Gilels (1971, live in Ossiach), Alexei Lubimov (198?), Sviatoslav Richter (1989, live in London)
Sonata 9 (K.311): Lili Kraus (1954), Dezső Ránki (1978-78)
Sonata 10 (K.330): Walter Gieseking (1953), Krystian Zimerman (live in Vienna, 2008)
Sonata 11 (K.331): Walter Gieseking (1953), Lili Kraus (1954)
Sonata 12 (K.332): Artur Schnabel (1946), Lili Kraus (1954), Andreas Staier (2004)
Sonata 13 (K.333): Lili Kraus (1954), Sviatoslav Richter (live in Prague, 1966), Ivan Moravec (1982), Vladimir Horowitz (1987, studio), Vladimir Horowitz (1987, live in Munich)
Fantasy K.475 + Sonata 14 (K.457): Ivan Moravec (1967), Elisso Virsaladze (live in Munich, 1995), Jos van Immerseel (1996)
K.475 recorded alone: -
K.457 recorded alone: Annie Fischer (live in London, 1971)
Sonata 15 (K.533/494): Sviatoslav Richter (live in Prague, 1956), Sviatoslav Richter (live in Como, 1989), Jos van Immerseel (1996)
Sonata 16 (K.545): Lili Kraus (1954), Sviatoslav Richter (live in Prague, 1956), Dezső Ránki (1978-78), Sviatoslav Richter (live in London, 1989)
Sonata 17 (K.570):
Sonata 18 (K.576):

I prefer Richter's 1989 533 to the one from the 1950s - for the sense of searching, a mind searching for the music. Sarge should try Gulda's early ridiculous and presumptuous 545 (which is my favourite 545), and maybe Sammy.

So we have, in your impressions as reported, some characterful pianists who are deemed to be U (Pletnev, Yudina, Richter, Kraus), and others who are deemed to be non-U (Gould, that early Gulda 545, Landowska(?), late Brendel.)

[Que]

I wish I'd bought Giesking's Mozart on CD before it went OOP. Who knew?

You really didn't miss much.....  Got rid of my copy some time ago...

Q

[Cosi bel do]

I prefer Richter's 1989 533 to the one from the 1950s - for the sense of searching, a mind searching for the music. Sarge should try Gulda's early ridiculous and presumptuous 545 (which is my favourite 545), and maybe Sammy.

So we have, in your impressions as reported, some characterful pianists who are deemed to be U (Pletnev, Yudina, Richter, Kraus), and others who are deemed to be non-U (Gould, that early Gulda 545, Landowska(?), late Brendel.)

Yes, as usual, performances by the youngish Richter and by the older one are quite different. I'm not sure which one I prefer this time, though. Both versions are magnificent though.

It would certainly be interesting to have more opinions about the early Gulda:

http://www.youtube.com/v/RpbSdo_mr6Q

I don't like or dislike a version depending on perceiving the pianist as a characterful personality. I don't care for a pianist's personality when I'm listening to him or her. I care for the music and how it is correctly played, with in terms of technical perfection and interpretative spirit.
Gould is mechanical, cold, and usually wants to make a point he can play anything with reverse intentions of those of the composer. It fails most of the time.
Early Gulda stands out because of his ornamentations of course, but these are not as disturbing as some seem to feel. I merely find them unnecessary expressions of a mannered and poor vision of Mozart's music. And a bad way to cover a very flat piano playing, flat and brutal at times, the finale being the worst of the three movements of K.545 (and, by the way, the less ornamented).
The case of Landowska is entirely different. Her playing is sadly distant, lifeless, I too love the woman but, again, that doesn't make a performance interesting. The sad part is that her performances still have a lot of style and elegance...
Old Brendel is just a bad pianist (as ever...), covering his bad technique, his lack of clarity, of variety and his superficial understanding of the score with a bunch of pseudo-intellectual mannerisms. But the main problem is something you can't hide : it is expressively very poor, and inelegant as a whole.

Also, I'd prefer if you didn't present my modest attempt to cover the discography of Mozart's sonatas as a personal project, and to share my feelings about it, as a question of "U and non-U", a question of fanciness and of trivial and bourgeois conception of music. You're entirely entitled to like Gould and Gulda. As I am entitled to think and defend the idea that if you like them, it is either because you don't understand or don't like Mozart, without being implicitly called a philistine.

[Florestan]

Also, I'd prefer if you didn't present my modest attempt to cover the discography of Mozart's sonatas as a personal project, and to share my feelings about it, as a question of "U and non-U", a question of fanciness and of trivial and bourgeois conception of music. You're entirely entitled to like Gould and Gulda. As I am entitled to think and defend the idea that if you like them, it is either because you don't understand or don't like Mozart, without being implicitly called a philistine.

That´s actually worse than "bourgeois", it´s solipsistic to the core. 

First of all, if he didn´t like Mozart, he woudn´t bother listening to his music, right? 

And secondly, is your own, personal understanding of Mozart´s music the one and only right one, the universal yardstick by which all others are to be measured and found wanting? People have different personalities, different tastes, different sensibilities, different interests and different points of appreciation for any given body of music, Mozart´s included. Yours are only one among a myriad others; what makes you be so certain that all those who don´t share them don´t understand the music? Are you Mozart reincarnated? 

(Sorry if I sound a little harsh but I really do think your my-way-or-the-highway approach is untenable and rather rude)

[Cosi bel do]

Ok, I think you're making a point I just made, which is not very efficient. I shared my impressions, and repeatedly said these are my very personal opinions. Mandryka appeared slightly irritated that I didn't like Gulda's coinceited early attempt, and described my approach as a "U and non-U" system. I just found necessary to signify to him that it is kind of logical that everyone does not agree on everything, but it doesn't mean you should try to present one's attempt (even mine) at evaluating different versions as paltry.

But I hear you, of course, both of you actually, and I will keep the rest of my impressions to myself, along with my rudeness and my bourgeois feelings (how ironic I always tought Brendel was one of the worst symptoms of the victory of bourgeois bad taste in the classical music market). I certainly didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and I guess it is normal not everyone is as interested in my own comparison as myself

(Apart from these trivial considerations, is it Sucevita on your new avatar BTW ? I loved that place !)

[Jo498]

The video refuses to play. The later Gulda recordings of which there are 4-5 sonatas in good sound: K 570, 576 and the c minor fantasy on DG and 331 and 333? on amadeo are the opposite of mannered. Rather straight and IMO natural and tasteful interpretations.

[Florestan]

Ok, I think you're making a point I just made, which is not very efficient. I shared my impressions, and repeatedly said these are my very personal opinions. Mandryka appeared slightly irritated that I didn't like Gulda's coinceited early attempt,

The only thing Mandryka wrote in respect with Gulda´s early KV 545 is that it was his favorite. I fail to see the slightest irritation in that simple statement.

and described my approach as a "U and non-U" system.

But, my friend, bottom line any approach boils down to this. Based on your own criteria, feelings and tastes, Lili Kraus, Richter and Gilels are great Mozartian performers, while Gould, Gulda and Brendel are not --- and this, of course, says a lot about your personality (that "U" that seems to bother you so much) and little about the pianists themselves, unless you do have some universally valid and objectively defined standard by which to judge them all, and I suspect you actually don´t.

Look at it another way, if you want: if you were to play yourself the sonatas, you´d certainly play them like Kraus and not like Brendel. Therefore, Kraus is, in some sense, U while Brendel is non-U.

There´s nothing ¨bourgeois" about it.

I just found necessary to signify to him that it is kind of logical that everyone does not agree on everything, but it doesn't mean you should try to present one's attempt (even mine) at evaluating different versions as paltry.

Once again, you overreacted and read too much that is not there in Mandryka´s post.

But I hear you, of course, both of you actually, and I will keep the rest of my impressions to myself, along with my rudeness and my bourgeois feelings

Now, you´re overreacting again. IIRC, your work here has been praised repeatedly, included by me and Mandryka. Actually, I can hardly wait for your next round and what you make of Haebler´s set.

(how ironic I always tought Brendel was one of the worst symptoms of the victory of bourgeois bad taste in the classical music market).

That´s why the market is there in the first place: to satisfy the whole range of tastes at affordable prices. The bourgeois bad taste has the same right of being satisfied as the aristocratic or proletarian bad taste.

I certainly didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and I guess it is normal not everyone is as interested in my own comparison as myself

Mandryka replied to almost all your posts. I´d say that by doing that he showed at least a modicum of interest. 

But enough with my being his advocate. I´m sure he can speak for himself. 

(Apart from these trivial considerations, is it Sucevita on your new avatar BTW ? I loved that place !)

It´s Voronet. Have you visited it too?

[Cosi bel do]

The only thing Mandryka wrote in respect with Gulda´s early KV 545 is that it was his favorite. I fail to see the slightest irritation in that simple statement.

Well, in the "U / non-U" qualification, I don't think I'm overinterpreting when sensing it qualifies my whole approach as vain, arrogant or snob. Mandryka seems a reasonable and very polite person, so I thought that might be a sign of irritation.

But, my friend, bottom line any approach boils down to this. Based on your own criteria, feelings and tastes, Lili Kraus, Richter and Gilels are great Mozartian performers, while Gould, Gulda and Brendel are not --- and this, of course, says a lot about your personality (that "U" that seems to bother you so much) and little about the pianists themselves, unless you do have some universally valid and objectively defined standard by which to judge them all, and I suspect you actually don´t.

Again, I think everyone should be entitled to have an opinion and defend it. Which does not mean you shouldn't consider it being truly and definitely valid, otherwise I don't think all these discussions would have the least interest. So yes, there are versions I like and versions I dislike, but more importantly I think there are criteria to judge good pianists and bad pianists, good performances and bad performances (and not all good ones are versions I personally like, and not all versions I really like are among the very best).

I mean, how could one say any version is as valid as any other ? Of course not everything is good or bad, there are many criteria on which one can evaluate an artist or a performance, but I don't think anyone would disagree if I said Richter is a better pianist than HJ Lim for instance. So why is it unacceptable that I say he is better than Brendel or Kempff, even after listening to their respective recordings ? I also recall I do not to judge pianists on purely interpretative choices when they are consistent with a certain conception of the score (for instance, ornamentation is not necessarily a bad thing and the fact an artist does it in Mozart or not can't be in itself a bad thing, however the way it is done is something we can evaluate).

Again, respecting all opinions does not mean you shouldn't believe that you are right in preferring a version over another. Otherwise, I don't really know why we would listen to so many of them.

Look at it another way, if you want: if you were to play yourself the sonatas, you´d certainly play them like Kraus and not like Brendel. Therefore, Kraus is, in some sense, U while Brendel is non-U.

Wrong ! I would most certainly play them like Brendel because I am not a good pianist (not a pianist at all, even), my reading would therefore be limited by technical considerations, and I would be unable to hide them. I might even add a few mannerisms to try and conceal it partly...

And when I see the tremendous success Brendel had during his career, he is typically what I would call "U", pianists you "have" to see if you want to be "in", and to be able to say "I heard him". This is not always a bad sign. Today, Sokolov and Lang Lang are "U", while Virsaladze and say, Claire-Marie Le Guay are "non-U". But Sokolov and Virsaladze are excellent pianists. The commercial status of an artist has really no relation at all with his quality as an artist, and this is the case since the 1960s and the success of such pianists as Kempff and Brendel.

If I wanted to define who is "U", I just have to check out which versions are best sellers on Amazon. Apparently, in that order : Eschenbach, Uchida, Pires, Schiff.

Now, you´re overreacting again. IIRC, your work here has been praised repeatedly, included by me and Mandryka. Actually, I can hardly wait for your next round and what you make of Haebler´s set.

Well, thanks, but I'm more worried by hurting one's feelings than by missing praise, as pleasurable as that might be
It is decided then : I will tell what I think of everything good I might think about Haebler, and will avoid sharing any non positive feedback...

That´s why the market is there in the first place: to satisfy the whole range of tastes at affordable prices. The bourgeois bad taste has the same right of being satisfied as the aristocratic or proletarian bad taste.

It has the right to be satisfied. But it should be discussed and opposed to. Otherwise, there wouldn't be the need of forums, Amazon would be sufficient (and even their evaluation system would be unnecessary).

Mandryka replied to almost all your posts. I´d say that by doing that he showed at least a modicum of interest. 

But enough with my being his advocate. I´m sure he can speak for himself. 

I know, and I thanked him repeatedly for informing me or reminding me about many versions, which has been really useful !
And I don't think I "accused" Mandryka of anything really.

It´s Voronet. Have you visited it too?

I think I did. I saw two of these painted monasteries a few years ago while touring Eastern Europe in an old BMW a friend and I had bought for a few hundred euros (and that we sold in Bucarest to pay our plane tickets). Sucevita for sure, and probably Voronets then. Bucovina is really one of the most beautiful regions I visited on the continent.

[Mandryka]

I just wanted to provoke a discussion of the principles underlying Discobolus's choices, otherwise we're just left with a list of stuff he enjoyed. What was at the back of my mind is that someone like Kraus and Richter play very characterfully - it's not vanilla Mozart we're hearing from them, any more than from Yudina, Pletnev or Gould. I haven't had time to read the replies properly yet - I'll post again if I have anything to say.

[Florestan]

Well, in the "U / non-U" qualification, I don't think I'm overinterpreting when sensing it qualifies my whole approach as vain, arrogant or snob. Mandryka seems a reasonable and very polite person, so I thought that might be a sign of irritation.

My bad, actually. I took "U and non-U" at face value and inferred that U stands simply for "You" and the whole thing was meant to imply subjectiveness and personal taste on your part. Seeing your strongly, repeatedly rejecting it I did a bit of research and saw that I was mistaken, the expression have other connotations of which I was completely unaware. Please accept my apologies for not understanding your justified reaction, in my defence I plead ignorance. 

Again, I think everyone should be entitled to have an opinion and defend it. Which does not mean you shouldn't consider it being truly and definitely valid, otherwise I don't think all these discussions would have the least interest.

Truly and definitely valid for the one who holds the opinions, yes. Truly and defintely valid for anyone else, no.

The interest of these discussions is not to arrive at an universal consensus or to define universally valid criteria; both tasks are impossible. The interest --- well, for me at least --- lies in discovering new interpretations, or revisiting familiar ones from a different perspective and, of course, in seeing, and trying to understand, how other people think about music in general and about music I like in particular. Last but not least, they are a splendid confirmation of the inherent subjectiveness of all such endeavors. I certainly don´t see them as establishing a universal canon, but it is always instructive and profitable to experience other people´s canons.

So yes, there are versions I like and versions I dislike, but more importantly I think there are criteria to judge good pianists and bad pianists, good performances and bad performances (and not all good ones are versions I personally like, and not all versions I really like are among the very best).

The one and only objective criterion I know is the technical one. If the score has a B-flat and the pianist plays a C-sharp, this is not good. If the tempo is marked Andante and s/he plays Prestissimo this is not good. If they can´t handle a difficult passage in at least a satisfactory manner, this is not good. Etc.

But this criterion, despite being objective (or should I say precisely because of being so?) is insufficient in itself. There were plenty of pianists who were notorious for their rather careless playing and yet who are celebrated among the greatest ones, eg Cortot or Edwin Fischer. Bottom line, it´s the net result that counts.

I mean, how could one say any version is as valid as any other ?

I don´t say that. I only say, and I repeat myself in that, that validity is always contextual. What´s valid for someone is not valid for somebody else and viceversa.

Of course not everything is good or bad, there are many criteria on which one can evaluate an artist or a performance, but I don't think anyone would disagree if I said Richter is a better pianist than HJ Lim for instance.

There might be some bourgeois out there with taste bad enough to think otherwise. 

So why is it unacceptable that I say he is better than Brendel or Kempff, even after listening to their respective recordings ?

it is not. What is unacceptable is to present this assertion as somehow based on universally valid criteria and therefore valid and compelling for anyone else, dissent being based solely on not understanding or not liking the music at hand --- which you did in the post that triggered my reaction.

Now, you might have written that as a sarcastic retort to Mandryka, not actually believing it, in which case I apologize. But if you really think that is truly the case than I reiterate my firm objection.

I also recall I do not to judge pianists on purely interpretative choices when they are consistent with a certain conception of the score (for instance, ornamentation is not necessarily a bad thing and the fact an artist does it in Mozart or not can't be in itself a bad thing, however the way it is done is something we can evaluate).

Sure, but each one of us evaluate differently. Who is right and who is wrong?

Again, respecting all opinions does not mean you shouldn't believe that you are right in preferring a version over another. Otherwise, I don't really know why we would listen to so many of them.

I would put it this way: I am right in prefering one version, but others are not wrong in prefering another. 

And when I see the tremendous success Brendel had during his career, he is typically what I would call "U", pianists you "have" to see if you want to be "in", and to be able to say "I heard him". This is not always a bad sign. Today, Sokolov and Lang Lang are "U", while Virsaladze and say, Claire-Marie Le Guay are "non-U". But Sokolov and Virsaladze are excellent pianists.

Lang Lang is better than his reputation, especially as of late. I remember him making it rather high in a GMG blind comparison of I-can´t-remember-which-one Chopin nocturne. Just saying.

The commercial status of an artist has really no relation at all with his quality as an artist, and this is the case since the 1960s and the success of such pianists as Kempff and Brendel.

That´s an exaggeration. Richter and Gilels, to pick randomly two names from your list, have extensive discographies, were eagerly sought after in their days and are widely celebrated today. Was/is their status completely unrelated to their artistic qualities?

It is decided then : I will tell what I think of everything good I might think about Haebler, and will avoid sharing any non positive feedback...

Absolutely not. I am interested in your honest opinion. If you like her playing, I´ll be glad. If you don´t, bad luck for me. Anyway, I´ll still be right in liking it while you will not be wrong in disliking it. 

It has the right to be satisfied. But it should be discussed and opposed to.

Discussed, yes, by all means. Opposed? I´m not that sure. If someone derives pleasure, delight and entertainment from something, is it my business to spoil it all just because that something happens to be not to my liking? I don´t think so. The world is large enough to accomodate all tastes, good and bad alike. I´ll play your game and say: if other people spend their money, and waste their time, on Brendel´s recordings, is this an impediment for you liking Richter instead? 

Otherwise, there wouldn't be the need of forums, Amazon would be sufficient (and even their evaluation system would be unnecessary).

I think that the essence of a forum, whatever topic it covers, should be discussion of, not opposition to. Discuss, dissect and expose Brendel, that´s okay, but why oppose people liking his performances?

The Amazon evaluation system is not a system at all. It consists of the most diverse people rating performances according to their own criteria, which oftenly conflict and contradict each other. It´s not unusual for a recording to exhibit the whole range, from 5 stars to 1. The rating as such was never a factor in my deciding whether to buy or not.

I think I did. I saw two of these painted monasteries a few years ago while touring Eastern Europe in an old BMW a friend and I had bought for a few hundred euros (and that we sold in Bucarest to pay our plane tickets).[/]

That must have been quite an experience. 

Sucevita for sure, and probably Voronets then. Bucovina is really one of the most beautiful regions I visited on the continent.

If you have seen only two of them, you might have seen Moldovitsa, it is nearer to Sucevitsa. Voronets lies farther northward. Anyway, I´m very glad you like it. Should you ever consider visiting Romania again, just let me know.

[Cosi bel do]

OK, you address two different issues here :

- Are there objective criteria in order to evaluate an interpretation, in particular of a piano piece?

- Is discussing interpretations only a matter of subjective taste, where everyone should keep in mind his opinion is no more than an opinion, or can one feel rightly that he has a valid knowledge of the quality of an interpretation over another, and in discussing this, can he not only say how much he thinks an interpretation is good, but also how other ones can be inferior, and eventually disagree and retort to other opinions.

I think these two issues are tied together but should be discussed apart from one another, each of them is sufficiently complex like that.

I'll now look up for existing topics, or create both of them. Here, back to Mozart !