I am reviewing three brand-new Waldstein Sonata recordings for MusicWeb at the moment and thought I might enlist GMG's help with a very, very short Blind Comparison Game!
Beethoven: Piano Sonata No. 21, "Waldstein"
excerpts from movements II. and III.
The rules are very simple. There are six clips, and they are 6-7 minutes in length depending on the pianist's chosen tempo. Listen to all six, describe your opinion of each performance, and rank them. You may feel free to discuss, disparage, praise, in any way you see fit. I would also very much appreciate it if you could tell me what pianists you are reminded of, if you are the kind of person who is inspired to post such things when you hear the clips. If you want to make actual guesses of names, go for it!
Voting will be open for one week - until midnight New York City time on the night of February 25th-26th, 2014. On the 26th, I will reveal the names of the six pianists.
Listen, enjoy, think, critique. Simple! Have fun!
Right-click links to download
[audio]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12672585/Waldstein/pianist1.mp3[/audio]
Pianist #1 (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12672585/Waldstein/pianist1.mp3)
[audio]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12672585/Waldstein/pianist2.mp3[/audio]
Pianist #2 (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12672585/Waldstein/pianist2.mp3)
[audio]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12672585/Waldstein/pianist3.mp3[/audio]
Pianist #3 (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12672585/Waldstein/pianist3.mp3)
[audio]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12672585/Waldstein/pianist4.mp3[/audio]
Pianist #4 (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12672585/Waldstein/pianist4.mp3)
[audio]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12672585/Waldstein/pianist5.mp3[/audio]
Pianist #5 (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12672585/Waldstein/pianist5.mp3)
[audio]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12672585/Waldstein/pianist6.mp3[/audio]
Pianist #6 (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12672585/Waldstein/pianist6.mp3)
P.S. One very important interpretive note. Splicing together the two movements was my responsibility. I used Audacity to do this. I tried hard to make sure the pause between movements was an appropriate length in each performance, but if the pause before the finale begins seems too long or too short, this may well be my fault, not the performer's.
P.P.S. One audiophile note. As I type this, I realize that Audacity may have compressed my original 320 kbps MP3 files. If you find the MP3 sound quality unacceptable, let me know and I'll try to re-edit everything. Ugh, Audacity. Why do you do this to me.
My notes unedited. 6 by a lot then 3. 1is eccentric and may get old but I liked. Then 5, 4, 2. I hope 2is not Kempff!
----
A1 very slow seeming at first, emerging from the mist, Very very controlled. A thought out performance. Gouldish, or gavrilov or ivo, some eccentric? Reminds me of gg. Masterly playing.
A2 more natural and flowing than 1 to start, more mainstream. Feels a tad underpowered. A tad sewing machine.
A3 also slow start but feels less so than1 as more pedal. Builds mood better than 1or 2 in early part. Less technique than 1. Like this one.
4 so far plays it like chopin tomas vasary like
So far 3 1 4 2
5 another eccentric. Tentative mood comes over well. Virtuosic in spades. Hamelin like? Harsh near the end.
6 winner winner chicken dinner . Easy winner. Reminds me of Brendel.
6 3 1 partly for its oddness 5 4 2
--------
I expect this will look silly when we learn the names
My unedited notes:
I am having a lot of trouble ranking these because I really enjoyed 5 out of the 6 performances.
But anyway, here goes: 5, 4, 6, 3, 1, 2.
My favorite: 5. Great clarity, a firm grasp of the argument. Good interpretive insight in the 2nd movement. Fire, spirit, passion and drama in the third.
2nd: 4. Searing live performance. Great spontaneity. My favorite second movement. The thumping was a bit distracting.
3rd: 6. Beautiful ringing tone. The music shines. A bit too slow and mannered for my taste. Very romantic sounding.
4th: 3. Another magnificent slow movement. Slightly loses the final spark at the end of the 3rd.
5th: 1. I really liked 1, it's a keeper. I just liked the others a bit more. Powerful, clear left hand. 3rd movement flows beautifully.
Not crazy about: 2. Seemed a bit mechanical, with what seemed at times like banging on the keys. The least fluid of all the performances.
I have no clue as to who any of these performers might be.
There, I've made a total fool of myself!
Listening notes:
1: Very even and considered. Nothing stands out. Good rather than great, although it does grow on you. (Ashkenazy?)
2: Lightweight and flowing. Almost dreaming. There are few strong contrasts and those that are there don't feel well integrated. Is there too little happening?
3: Remarkably natural, like coming home. The pianist obviously completely in his element. Beethoven specialist.
4: A bit stop and start. Rather episodic and bland.
5: A bit willful at the start. Interpretation sounds like a work in progress, not fully thought out yet. The variations in tempo don't really feel natural. Trying too hard.
6: Cautious, deliberate and dull. Nothing much is happening here.
Order: 3,1,2,5,4,6
I prefer 3 by quite a margin, and really don't like 6.
I hope you'll get quite a few more answers so that hopefully a pattern will emerge. :)
Thoughts after 1 listen -
Pianists 1 and 6 have the best "big picture" I think—1 has some odd articulation which suggests s/he is trying to be Glenn Gould without Glenn Gould's technique, but it flows well with good transitions. 6 seems like an older recording and the technique is least secure of the lot—I think it's one of those scholar-pianists, Kempff or Rosen or Badura-Skoda come to mind. I like the slower pace of these two; one listens more carefully to the interpretive choices. 6 gets bonus points for coming closest to Beethoven's pedal instructions, too.
Pianists 2 and 4 seem to have the best technique. (2 reminded me a little of Brendel though I doubt it's him.) Their pedaling leaves something to be desired however. In 4's case I can understand since 4 ended up with the best piano of the lot, and those vibrato effects are pretty special, even if they aren't what Beethoven might have wanted. 2 is too all-or-nothing most of the time, louds are too loud, quiets too quiet. 4 is much better and probably has the best energy of the lot.
3 and 5 were good but with some unnatural feeling tempo changes. I wasn't totally convinced by either of them.
No clear preference order yet, will re-listen at some point. I think 6 and 4 will end up at the top in some order though.
Interesting, thanks - not that I spend much time with Beethoven in general or this sonata in particular - I have 3 versions in my collection but have probably only listened to them once each, before.
Well I'll go with No.2, which hasn't had much love so far.
2 > 6 > 1 > > 4 > 3 > 5
First pass brought out 1, 2 and 6 for another listen, and I also listened to the three versions I have, which strangely are all on the same record label and by big name 'last century' Beethoven pianists.
One of mine sounded quite similar to no.6, and one had some resemblance to no.2 (but not the same pianist I think), and the third surprised me by sounding rushed and imprecise by comparison with any of these, and quite unlike any of them.
[comments edited]
1 fluid, sweet toned, very even delivery, dare I say it a rather 'feminine' sound. And a nice recording. I like it.
2 highly articulated, really explained the music to me in a way the others didn't (except maybe 6). 1st place.
3 "Beethoven specialist" someone said - I'd go along with that. Which doesn't really endear me.
4 quite like 1 but more 'performed' - tempo variations and dynamics that I find a bit intrusive - which is also true of 3 and 5.
5 "a work in progress" and "trying too hard" somebody said - yes and yes. 6th of 6.
6 s-l-o-w, rather like no.2 but with the speed control turned down from 45 to 33. I like it but it is just a bit too pipe-and-slippers having heard 2. 2nd place. Both 2 and 6 had rather indifferent sound, whereas 1 was good. I didn't run the other three through my best gear.
amw: "1 has some odd articulation which suggests s/he is trying to be Glenn Gould without Glenn Gould's technique,"
I speculated Gould like on #1 too. To me it sounds technically assured I must say. Odd effect and reading but the effect he wants. Which is almost the definition of Gould!
Quote from: Drosera on February 19, 2014, 09:21:43 PM6: Cautious, deliberate and dull. Nothing much is happening here.
What ??? Is that possible :o ??? I mean, not liking it, okay, but how can you say nothing is happening here ? Here this is not a sonata anymore, this is a symphony for piano solo ! 8)
Quote from: Ken B on February 18, 2014, 04:40:29 PMEasy winner.
Right !
Quote from: Ken B on February 18, 2014, 04:40:29 PMReminds me of Brendel.
Hem... This is quite insulting. I mean, Brendel never played that like this, not even close... :(
Quote from: Cosi bel do on February 20, 2014, 01:49:59 PM
Right !
Hem... This is quite insulting. I mean, Brendel never played that like this, not even close... :(
Eh. I'm probably wrong about Brendel. But I'm right about how good it is!
Quote from: Ken B on February 20, 2014, 02:16:11 PM
Eh. I'm probably wrong about Brendel. But I'm right about how good it is!
Yes no doubt about that. The best.
Quote from: Ken B on February 20, 2014, 09:54:50 AM
amw: "1 has some odd articulation which suggests s/he is trying to be Glenn Gould without Glenn Gould's technique,"
I speculated Gould like on #1 too. To me it sounds technically assured I must say. Odd effect and reading but the effect he wants. Which is almost the definition of Gould!
Gould was extremely fastidious about notes, rhythms and dynamics—if they were even slightly inaccurate (compared to his conception of the piece) he would retake. This pianist seems willing to let a few inaccuracies and inconsistencies slip past, and also plays a bit less harshly. Agree with you about the effect though. I don't know if Gould ever recorded the 'Waldstein', I imagine so but I can't find it on NML.
1. Slow and controlled performances, but I love the velvet sound in piano notes the pianist creates. the only minor drawback is he hold back too much on movement III. Rank 2
2. Natural playing in the movement II with certain nice pauses to creat effect. Movement III is well articulated but nothing special happens. The high point is the way the pianist handles the transition point, very natural and well-thought. Rank 4
3. Great one, natural playing with good taste. Rank 3.
4. Like someone described, it is the start-and-stop performance, but the problems is that the pianist doesn't know how to build the tension in climax, and he uses only one tone with one volume. A disapointment, no doubt. Rank 6
5. The best sounding, also I think a best playing in term of articulation. Tension is sustained greatly, but this performances was forced to be too hard, steelly muscular. It bored me lately. Rank 5.
6. The best one, which combines most of the good quality of other performances, natural transition point handling of the 3th, very well articulated and great details of the 5th, the slow but beautiful climax build of the 1st. Rank 1
to sum up, 6 > 1 >3 >2>5>4
1- Brilliant first note, but quickly loses the line for me. And the stop and start (use of silence) are too abrupt. Though, things seem to improve once past the first movement. When we get to the third movement, I have the impression of hesitation in the way some notes are hit. The right hand doesn't give me enough security and then there is some variation of tempo that reinforces this impression. On the other hand, when the pianist gets going, it does get pretty good. I think another issue for me is that some of it is played too deliberately.
2- A much better second movement. I feel the line immediately. The reverb doesn't give it a jerkiness that the first one had. The topline in the melody in the third movement has more weight, but is still floating (better the second time, by the way). Here, the topline is perhaps too overweight in moments? There is a certain mechanicalness almost in a Bachian way. I think it has to do with the way the stacatto is used in some parts. What I do like about this one is the way the tension is held better. There is more nuance within phrases. This has a more classical feel as opposed to a more romantic approach.
3- Colder, more formal second movement. Not inviting. A bit dull in the beginning. I like the phrasing of the topline here once they get past the second movement. But there are some sudden tempo changes that I can't understand. Just spoils the flow and the impact. There are some sections that are quite interesting (mostly the stronger, louder moments), but I feel the softer moments are not used to their full advantage. This one is a bit of a Jekyl and Hyde for me.
4- In the second movement one of the notes is lost and that run is weakened. But this is otherwise a decent section (and gets better as it goes on, creating some nice tension). The melody in the third movement than has a floating style to it (perhaps slightly too strong, but this could be mostly a mic placement thing) and the section has nice pulse to it. The use of phrasing and dynamics is excellent (and finally doesn't overdo the louder sections, which gives it a certain organic evolution the others lack). I like the way this pianist hits the note compared to some. I can't say it is ideal, but I think I could live with this one (though the foot tapping or whatever that is might irritate me on repeated listenings). This makes good use of the line and there are more differences between each section.
5- The second movement is less subtle and too much rubato in parts. When we hit the main melody in the third movement, the bottom line seems mushy, in part because of the strong reverb. The section between the melody and when it repeats is poor. It has no subtlety or mystery. In general, I find myself irritated with this one. The phrasing and dynamics within each section are quite static.
6- Very nice start. The line is clear and there is more subtlety here to start. There is humming here. In the melody of the third movement, the bottom seems a bit overwhelmed, which I do not like. The overall impact is still among the stronger versions though. There is an element of mechanicalness here as well. But there is clearly more tension in this version as well. This and #1 seem quite similar in certain ways. In fact, my first thought was that these might be the same player.
Ordering: 4, 2, 6, 1, 3, 5
Sigh. So I went and ordered Gould playing Ludwig. A bargain from zoverstocks at Amazon.
20 sonatas, not what the title says, under 11bucks.
And no Waldstein.
Quote from: Ken B on February 20, 2014, 04:55:33 PM
Sigh. So I went and ordered Gould playing Ludwig. A bargain from zoverstocks at Amazon.
20 sonatas, not what the title says, under 11bucks.
And no Waldstein.
WARNING: Gould vocalizes a good deal in these recordings, at some points overwhelming the piano! This especially applies to the earlier sonatas. Turned me off enough that I've never gotten around to getting the Gould sonatas not in that set.
1. Really strikingly graceful in the first part of the main theme; however, not really enough power when needed. I liked it, overall.
EDIT: actually, it is strong enough when it needs to be. Probably my favorite one.
2. Starts off oddly catchy; too straightforward and direct.
3. The beginning is how it should be played if you ask me. The crescendo was wtf... just different, I guess. Didn't really care for it other than the beginning.
4. Starts with dynamics all over the place lol. The jerkiness in some moments doesn't help, though I wouldn't call it a bad interpretation. It just lacks gracefulness, if that is what you want in this sonata.
5. Something about this one strikes me as 'Italian' for some reason lol.
6. Hm, I like this one, though maybe a tad too slow.
So, 1 and 6 are my favorites.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 20, 2014, 06:18:19 PM
WARNING: Gould vocalizes a good deal in these recordings, at some points overwhelming the piano! This especially applies to the earlier sonatas. Turned me off enough that I've never gotten around to getting the Gould sonatas not in that set.
Some of the Bach stuff too. But never having heard his Beethoven I couldn't resist after this discussion.
Today's verdict:
I see Beethoven's music as combining the free fantasy and wit of CPE Bach/Haydn/Mozart et al (the original "Romantics") with a certain Baroque rigor and seriousness derived from Bach and Handel, rather than being an active participant in the development of new styles that started with the composers of the next generation. If you view Beethoven as a Romantic composer in the sense that, say, Schumann or Wagner were, we probably won't agree on things.
1 + 2 are the interpretations that emphasize the proportion, rigor, seriousness and "ordinariness" (which is an important concept in Beethoven as well—the melody of this rondo is very "normal", apart from its sonority: nothing but tonic and dominant, arranged in neat 4- and 8-bar phrases). They are the most carefully controlled, along with 5. I think pianist 2 has the best technique of the lot, and thus the best control, but I can't say I agree with his/her choices—the fantasy is de-emphasized too much and it is an equally important aspect, right from the first phrase of Op. 2 no. 1 with its halting fermatas. The second movement comes across as too fast. I can't rate 2 too highly, though I can see how it would be some people's favourite. Pianist 1 on the other hand takes a long time to get going, but the performance picks up through the Rondo with decent flow. A solid performance never losing sight of the larger structure. I like it.
3 is a bit odd with unnecessary changes in tempo, though I liked the sound of the upper notes better than 1 or 2. Ultimately, it was all right but didn't seem particularly special, so while I don't actively dislike it, I'm still probably going to have to give it last place.
4 + 5 dial up the fantasy quite a bit. 4 in particular is an overtly Romantic interpretation of the sort you might have heard from Liszt. It's a live performance and a very energetic one by a pianist clearly at the height of his/her powers. From the assurance displayed by the technique I'll therefore have to assume the minuscule pauses before every new section are intentional, along with the wash of very un-Beethovenian pedaling. These things aren't quite to my taste, but the performer has enough personality to make it work, sort of. I like it, but I wouldn't play it like that. 5 doesn't take it all the way to the 1850s but does do some odd things with rhythm and tempo. The control is very good—the technique ends up being a bit muddier than 2, but is at a similar level. In the end it just didn't grab me as much; not enough grasp of the larger structure I think.
6 was my favourite and I think has the best balance of freedom and strictness, best use of piano sonority and most assured sense of structural unfolding. The technique isn't as great and there are lots of moments that suffer—bass notes being lost, uneven rhythms, smeared triplets—but there is a real sense of poetry which I didn't get nearly as much of from anyone else here. If it is the same pianist as 1 s/he definitely improved between the two recordings (actually, 6 sounds older than 1, so more likely got worse).
Final ranking 6 1 4 2 5 3.
I should note that if any of these were in my collection, I wouldn't get rid of them or spin them any less often; but if they turned out not to be, the only one I'd consider buying is 6.
I should also note that I currently have only 1 Waldstein in my collection, and it's on a period instrument (the disc with Opp.49, 53 and 54 from Brendel's Phillips set was scratched), so I don't have a lot of basis for comparison apart from having sight-read the sonata a few times (and of course Barenboim on LPs when I was a youngster).
There are a few days left to go, and much more time for many more votes and discussion points, but I just want to say two things:
1. I am absolutely fascinated by your answers so far, enough so that my opinion of one particular recording has changed significantly;
2. Pianist #1, who has been compared to Glenn Gould three times so far, is not Glenn Gould; (s)he recorded this sonata in 2013.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 20, 2014, 06:18:19 PM
WARNING: Gould vocalizes a good deal in these recordings, at some points overwhelming the piano! This especially applies to the earlier sonatas. Turned me off enough that I've never gotten around to getting the Gould sonatas not in that set.
You know, there is a solution to this problem. Enter: The Glenn Gould De-Vocalizer 2000! (http://www.davegrossman.net/gould/)
Quote from: Wanderer on February 20, 2014, 10:21:13 PM
You know, there is a solution to this problem. Enter: The Glenn Gould De-Vocalizer 2000! (http://www.davegrossman.net/gould/)
I may never stop laughing. I can hardly type.
Quote from: Cosi bel do on February 20, 2014, 01:48:12 PM
What ??? Is that possible :o ??? I mean, not liking it, okay, but how can you say nothing is happening here ? Here this is not a sonata anymore, this is a symphony for piano solo ! 8)
Well, okay, 'nothing happening' maybe exaggerated. But I've listened to it a few more times and it still doesn't work for me. It attempts at gravitas but ends up sounding mostly stodgy. Interestingly, there is real greatness here, it just that it only comes off intermittently. I prefer my piano sonatas as piano sonatas, rather than symphonies. :)
There's a good chance that it would convince me more if I heard the performance as a whole. But in this fragment? No.
The playing really makes me think of Richter, but I don't think he ever recorded it in the studio.
Quote from: Drosera on February 20, 2014, 10:56:22 PM
Well, okay, 'nothing happening' maybe exaggerated. But I've listened to it a few more times and it still doesn't work for me. It attempts at gravitas but ends up sounding mostly stodgy. Interestingly, there is real greatness here, it just that it only comes off intermittently. I prefer my piano sonatas as piano sonatas, rather than symphonies. :)
There's a good chance that it would convince me more if I heard the performance as a whole. But in this fragment? No.
The playing really makes me think of Richter, but I don't think he ever recorded it in the studio.
Thanks for explaining your vote. I understand I one could not be overwhelmed by this version as it has already been explained to me a few times. Still this is a musical tour de force. My favourite Waldstein for a very long time.
Do most people listen more than once? My interpretation of the thread premise was that you rank and post thoughts after one listen.
Quote from: NJ Joe on February 21, 2014, 03:08:55 AM
Do most people listen more than once? My interpretation of the thread premise was that you rank and post thoughts after one listen.
There is no hard and fast rule. I prefer to listen once with some additional comparative listening as needed (which may involve re-listening to some in their entirety or very little extra listening). Others listen several times. I often will start the first one after the last one just to make sure I was not being influenced by it being first.
Quote from: NJ Joe on February 21, 2014, 03:08:55 AM
Do most people listen more than once? My interpretation of the thread premise was that you rank and post thoughts after one listen.
That's what I did. That way, when we learn who did which and all my comments look ridiculous I have an excuse.
I listened once too. I sent my comments by private message to Brian, because I recognized 2 of the pianists (version 6 immediately, version 3 I didn't see anyone else possible). And I didn't want to spoil everyone's fun.
Quote from: Ken B on February 21, 2014, 05:24:44 AM
That's what I did. That way, when we learn who did which and all my comments look ridiculous I have an excuse.
LOL, me too!
Quote from: Cosi bel do on February 21, 2014, 05:52:25 AM
I listened once too. I sent my comments by private message to Brian, because I recognized 2 of the pianists (version 6 immediately, version 3 I didn't see anyone else possible). And I didn't want to spoil everyone's fun.
Yes, I took the term "lightening round" to mean one listen. But whatever...I'll give them another go or two.
I just capped off a crappy work week with my son wrecking his car. Fortunately no one hurt. Unfortunately, my wallet will surely suffer. It never ends... :(
Quote from: NJ Joe on February 21, 2014, 03:08:55 AM
Do most people listen more than once? My interpretation of the thread premise was that you rank and post thoughts after one listen.
I listened twice, first in order, then in tentative order of preference. Still kind of new to these things so I don't have a favourite way to do it yet.
Quote from: Brian on February 20, 2014, 08:22:08 PM2. Pianist #1, who has been compared to Glenn Gould three times so far, is not Glenn Gould; (s)he recorded this sonata in 2013.
Biss, El Bacha, Brawn, or Bavouzet? (A lot of Bs in there.)
pre-script: thanks for setting this up, I've found it very educational.
caveat: i don't have the sheet music, so i don't know what LvB's 'intentions' were.
1: I like the way the loud sections are played, overall theme is played slowly enough during these sections to not miss anything but right hand keeps busy to not create lulls in the playing (cf. #2). Pedaling choices agree with me, dynamics vary nicely. Tempo choices also seem appropriate to me
2: playing at start of excerpt feels a bit rushed; because the left hand is playing so much more loudly than the right during loud passages momentum is lost a few times.
3: loud passages are far too loud, though I like the fluent way in which the loud sections are played; transitions feel awkward. Soft passages louder than i like; seems a bit rushed overall, pianist doesn't seem to understand that pauses can also help to create contrast between passages (cf. #6, #4)
4: flows nicely and i like the tempo choices except at the start of the excerpt, where the playing feels a bit too fast; dynamic changes feel natural and dynamics vary nicely. pedaling choices agree with me.
5: loud passages a bit too loud, softer passages nicely lyrical if a tad loud. Dynamics overall feel less rich than in e.g. #6, and changes are sometimes a bit forced (esp. at 2:50).
6: Start of the excerpt is a played somewhat too slowly for my taste, otherwise nicely flowing. Well-timed pauses, much more dynamical variation than in #5.
order of preference: 6, 1, 4, 5, 3, 2.
HELP I can't get these to play and as Op 53 is one of my favourite LvB sonatas I would like to take part in this survey.
Quote from: Holden on February 22, 2014, 12:51:28 PM
HELP I can't get these to play and as Op 53 is one of my favourite LvB sonatas I would like to take part in this survey.
There are two ways - First is to press play on the player. I can't always see it. Try replying to a post (without actually posting it) and then checking it again. Sometimes that works for me. If not, just right click on the link next to the player and save to your computer to listen that way. The second should work even if the first does not.
You should also be able to left click the link next to the player, and the clip will play in your browser.
Every clip seemed to have a long (5 secondsish) load time, so you may need to wait a moment before it starts playing.
1
I like it.
2
sounds very familiar, which in my case means it must be either Brendel or Kempff. It's not the Brendel early 70s version I grew up with, but it sounds 'kinda Brendel' to me (why do I pretend to be capable of hearing such things?). So let me guess it's another Brendel installment?
3
I like it, right kind of drive
4
don't know, doesn't evoke anything special
5
too unevenly played to my taste
6
firm, but not overly exciting
3 = 2 > 1 > 6 > 4 > 5
Am I the only one who has this sinking feeling of inadequacy when I try to give my 'opinions' on the fragments? All such great pianists and here comes a mr P who never even quite managed to play Mozart's Fantasia in D minor half decently, and starts saying what 'he thinks'. :( I'm telling myself I'm doing this to educate myself. I do thank you though for the opportunities here!
Quote from: Pim on February 22, 2014, 11:47:16 PM
sounds very familiar, which in my case means it must be either Brendel or Kempff. It's not the Brendel early 70s version I grew up with, but it sounds 'kinda Brendel' to me (why do I pretend to be capable of hearing such things?). So let me guess it's another Brendel installment?
I hope it is Brendel, I've always liked his technique so I will feel marginally less stupid for praising pianist #2's chops if it turns out to be him. (Doubt it, but it does sound rather Brendelian to my ears as well.)
Quote from: Pim on February 22, 2014, 11:47:16 PM
3 = 2 > 1 > 6 > 4 > 5
Am I the only one who has this sinking feeling of inadequacy when I try to give my 'opinions' on the fragments? All such great pianists and here comes a mr P who never even quite managed to play Mozart's Fantasia in D minor half decently, and starts saying what 'he thinks'. :( I'm telling myself I'm doing this to educate myself. I do thank you though for the opportunities here!
Sinking feeling of inadequacy? I chose 5 as my favorite, and it's near or at the bottom of everyone else's list! The thing is, I listened to them all again and I
still place 5 near or at the top! I'm an amateur and certain I have the least experience of anyone around here, but can't help but like what I hear. Like you, I feel fortunate to be able to have the opportunity to participate in an exercise like this. My advice: don't worry about it.
Quote from: Pim on February 22, 2014, 11:47:16 PM
1
I like it.
2
sounds very familiar, which in my case means it must be either Brendel or Kempff. It's not the Brendel early 70s version I grew up with, but it sounds 'kinda Brendel' to me (why do I pretend to be capable of hearing such things?). So let me guess it's another Brendel installment?
3
I like it, right kind of drive
4
don't know, doesn't evoke anything special
5
too unevenly played to my taste
6
firm, but not overly exciting
3 = 2 > 1 > 6 > 4 > 5
Am I the only one who has this sinking feeling of inadequacy when I try to give my 'opinions' on the fragments? All such great pianists and here comes a mr P who never even quite managed to play Mozart's Fantasia in D minor half decently, and starts saying what 'he thinks'. :( I'm telling myself I'm doing this to educate myself. I do thank you though for the opportunities here!
I did not like 2, but like both Kempff and Brendel, so I also hope it,s not Brendel! Or Kempff! Especially Kempff!
But there is no right way to play any great piece of music. And people who know the music well over a long time may develop a bias for the odd or eccentric as it sounds fresher.
Can hear the crickets chirping over here ...
Like the comparisons to Gould, the Kempff/Brendel thoughts also apply to a brand-new recording - so, naturally, I find them fascinating.
Quote from: Brian on February 23, 2014, 07:26:52 PM
Like the comparisons to Gould, the Kempff/Brendel thoughts also apply to a brand-new recording - so, naturally, I find them fascinating.
Well mine at least, about 2, was not that it sounded like either. I love both and rated 2 lowest. I just don't want to end up looking like a TOTAL doofus.
That's James's job.
>:D
Perhaps I'm not made for comparison listening.
I did all five Friday afternoon, and the differences seemed so insignificant to me that I saw no sense in commenting, and no reason to prefer one over the other.
ETA: for some reason Nos. 4 and 5 seemed to have tinnier sounding sonics, but that could easily be due to several factors, one of which might be ear fatigue.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 23, 2014, 07:45:51 PM
I did all five Friday afternoon, and the differences seemed so insignificant to me that I saw no sense in commenting, and no reason to prefer one over the other.
I listened on Friday, had a slight favorite, but basically thought the same thing. Then, I listened to them again just now (in reverse order) and noticed lots of differences. I still have the same favorite.
Favorite: #5
I really shouldn't like this. Tempos are constantly being pushed and pulled. It feels slow even though it's actually the second fastest. The word that kept popping into my head was "impressionist," and isn't that just wrong for Beethoven? Yet despite all logic, I liked it a lot. On the second go-around it wasn't really close.
Runner-up: #1
Aside from some mild agogics towards the end of the clip, I thought this was a relatively straightforward reading, but very well done. The slow movement had a good sense of arc.
#3
I didn't notice any audience noise, but the recording had a live feel, which I liked. The performance is the sort whose fans call it "subtle" and whose detractors call it "underplayed." If Richter had played the Waldstein, this is what it would have not sounded like. Is this Kempff?
#6
There were some things I liked here, a sense of delicacy (making it my other guess for Kempff), but there were some choices of dynamics and sustains that didn't make any sense to me.
#2
In my notes I wrote "something is missing here" 3 different times. This was the first one where I noticed rushed entries in the soft-loud section towards the end of the clip, though some other performers were just as bad.
#4
As with #5 I noticed lots of tempo fluctuations and hesitations, but on this one, they didn't work for me at all.
5 > 1 > 3 > 6 > 2 > 4
Quote from: NJ Joe on February 23, 2014, 05:33:28 AM
Sinking feeling of inadequacy? I chose 5 as my favorite, and it's near or at the bottom of everyone else's list! The thing is, I listened to them all again and I still place 5 near or at the top! I'm an amateur and certain I have the least experience of anyone around here, but can't help but like what I hear. Like you, I feel fortunate to be able to have the opportunity to participate in an exercise like this. My advice: don't worry about it.
Well, I liked #5 the best too... and I said "relatively straightforward" about the one that two people (who probably know more than me about piano) thought was Gould... and I may have riled Cosi by mentioning Kempff for #6 >:D -- though he should be happy that #6 seems to be winning.
One thing I've noticed about performing artists (and I've worked with a few) is that, they really don't like repeating themselves. And the higher up the scale you get towards 'genius', the more this seems to be the case.
Quick reminder that about 26 hours remain. Believe it or not, 5 of the 6 pianists have been named either in this thread or in PMs to me.
Quote from: Brian on February 24, 2014, 05:57:50 PM
Quick reminder that about 26 hours remain. Believe it or not, 5 of the 6 pianists have been named either in this thread or in PMs to me.
Wow! The remaining pianist must be
really obscure! ;)
Quote from: amw on February 24, 2014, 06:00:03 PM
Wow! The remaining pianist must be really obscure! ;)
Well, three of the six were "identified" only on the technicality that Todd knows who recorded sonatas in 2013 :P
I'm surprised that Todd had to figure it out by the recording dates, rather than instantly identifying the performer from the first few seconds of each excerpt. He clearly needs to listen to more Beethoven cycles.
Quote from: amw on February 24, 2014, 06:07:55 PM
I'm surprised that Todd had to figure it out by the recording dates, rather than instantly identifying the performer from the first few seconds of each excerpt. He clearly needs to listen to more Beethoven cycles.
He hasn't voted, so he may not have listened. If he does he could probably ID at least 4, possibly 5 of the recordings, and guess the sixth.
Quote from: Brian on February 24, 2014, 06:13:43 PM
He hasn't voted, so he may not have listened. If he does he could probably ID at least 4, possibly 5 of the recordings, and guess the sixth.
This is what I love about this place. Most people consider me a fanatic, but around here...
6,5,2,1,3,and 4.
Thanks, Brian.
I like #3 the most. The others are okay. The descriptions of these pieces are all over the place. What is cold to one listener is overly loud to another is understated to another etc etc
3 > (1=2=4=5=6)
Listened through each of them once, starting from 6 and working up to 1.
Ranking:
6 > 1 = 2 > 3 > 5 > 4
Thanks for putting it together, eager to see the results.
Quote from: Ken B on February 24, 2014, 06:43:45 PM
This is what I love about this place. Most people consider me a fanatic, but around here...
+1
Quote from: Ken B on February 24, 2014, 06:43:45 PM
This is what I love about this place. Most people consider me a fanatic, but around here...
There are enough fanatissimos around here that you barely register.
With a few hours left...
- nobody has chosen pianist #1 as their favorite OR their least favorite
- pianists 2, 3, and 4 have been listed in every single ballot spot; pianist 5 has been in every spot except (s)he is nobody's third-place choice
- over half of voters chose pianist #6 as their first place
- one of my all-time favorite Beethoven cycles, by pianist #4, is taking a beating
- pianists 2 and 3 are tied
I listened to them right after the cips were posted and then skimmed them again Sunday. Here's my recollections, ranked in order of preference:
#1 - Seemed to stick out as more enjoyable for me than the others
#4 - Also very strong, #4 and #1 were very close, in my estimation
#6 - Also, very close in my memory to the first two, as far as enjoyment
#5 - not memorable
#3 - not memorable
#2 - This is the only one I did not find very enjoyable
Quote from: Brian on February 25, 2014, 11:06:57 AM
With a few hours left...
- nobody has chosen pianist #1 as their favorite OR their least favorite
- pianists 2, 3, and 4 have been listed in every single ballot spot; pianist 5 has been in every spot except (s)he is nobody's third-place choice
- over half of voters chose pianist #6 as their first place
- one of my all-time favorite Beethoven cycles, by pianist #4, is taking a beating
- pianists 2 and 3 are tied
Can we cast strategic conditional votes? I like Kempff, Brendel, and Ashkenazy. If one of them is #4 move #4 up 1 spot in my ranking, that sort of thing? ???
Nah, better not. But it might be fun watching Brian cope with insanely complicated conditional votes. >:D
Thanks to sanantonio (whose taste is similar to mine, mostly! thanks for voting for #4!), #2 and #3 are no longer tied... but #4 and #5 ARE tied :P
Kempff, Brendel, and Ashkenazy are not in this competition. :)
Sound is poor for all samples, meaning I couldn't fully appreciate the playing, especially in dynamics and tone – the dynamic limitations are very obvious in just the first clip. I also dislike the bleeding chunks approach, but, using a 100 point scale:
1 – 70
2 – 80
3 – 90
4 – 70
5 – 70
6 – 75
3, 2, 6, then a tie between 1, 4 & 5
Quote from: Brian on February 25, 2014, 11:06:57 AM
- nobody has chosen pianist #1 as their favorite OR their least favorite
Greg picked #1 as his favourite, back on the first page. Otherwise, it seems to be most people's second favourite. >.>
It is maddening to talk about results, but not see them all. So here they are....
Ken B NJ Joe Drosera aukhawk Trung224 mc ukrneal Greg AMW Ospinbosom Pim Pat B Bogey DavidW C Sheep sanantonio Todd Cosi eumyang
1st 6 5 3 2 6 4 1 6 6 3/2 5 6 3 6 1 3 6 2
2nd 3 4 1 6 1 2 6 1 1 3/2 1 5 1/2 4 2 3 1
3rd 1 6 2 1 3 6 4 4 1 3 2 1/2 6 6 2 3
4th 5 3 5 4 2 1 2 5 6 6 1 3 5 1/4/5 1/4 5
5th 4 1 4 3 5 3 5 3 4 2 3 5 3 1/4/5 1/4 6
6th 2 2 6 5 4 5 3 2 5 4 4 4 2 1/4/5 5 4
Let me know if I made a mistake or forgot anyone.
I sent mine to Brian by mp :
6 > 3 >>> 2 >> 1=4 >>>>>> 5
I only have time to comment on #4, #5, and #6:
1st: #2
2nd: #1
3rd: #3
4th: #5 - Too much rubato in II. A bit mushy in places in III.
5th: #6 - Do I hear humming? Execution a little "sketchy" in a couple of places. Beginning of III sounds to me like the pianist's touch is too light. I want the trills smooth when the theme appears above, but with nearly every note from the theme I hear at the same time accents within the trill. Even if that is Beethoven's intention (I don't have the score in front of me), yuck. End of c minor episode, I didn't like the slowing down of the unison C's.
6th: #4 - I'm sure that I will get flamed for this, but I don't like live recordings. The thumping was also distracting. Also, here and there, too much time was taken between the end of a phrase and the beginning of another.
Results
The scores are generally meaningless; what's important is the differences between the scores.
Here's what the scores are. A recording got 1 point for being 1st, 6 points for being worst, etc., so the more points the lower the listening panel's opinion. With 17 votes counted, 17 would have been a perfect score.
DavidW and Greg submitted partial ballots. In these cases, everybody they did not specify was awarded 2 points for second place. (This did not affect the outcome.)
Sixth place: Pianist #4
73 points
Pianist #4
Good news: "Very strong" - sanantonio "flows nicely and i like the tempo choices except at the start...dynamic changes feel natural" - 0spinboson "Searing live performance. Great spontaneity." - NJ Joe "The melody in the third movement than has a floating style to it" - Neal "an overtly Romantic interpretation" - amw
Bad news: "I noticed lots of tempo fluctuations and hesitations, but on this one, they didn't work for me at all." - Pat B "plays it like Chopin" - Ken B "Episodic and bland" - Drosera "tempo variations and dynamics that I find a bit intrusive" - aukhawk "the pianist doesn't know how to build the tension in climax, and he uses only one tone with one volume." - trung224 "lacks gracefulness" - Greg "Slow, mannered, affected. Finale is prosaic" - Cosi "I don't like live recordings." - eumyang
Pianist #4 was...
(http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_400/MI0001/088/MI0001088058.jpg?partner=allrovi.com)
Andrea Lucchesini
-
Fourth place: Pianist #5
71 points
Good news: "Fire, spirit, passion and drama" - NJ Joe "I really shouldn't like this. Tempos are constantly being pushed and pulled." - Pat B
Bad news: "does do some odd things with rhythm and tempo. The control is very good—the technique ends up being a bit muddier than 2" - amw "no subtlety or mystery. In general, I find myself irritated"- Neal "too hard, steelly muscular" - trung224 "a work in progress" and "trying too hard" - Drosera & aukhawk "Virtuosic in spades. Hamelin like?" - Ken B "loud" - 0spinboson "too unevenly played to my taste" - Pim "Pedal everywhere. Everything is blurred, this is awful. Not even a touch of elegance, phrasing is heavy, vulgar, and nothing seems alive here. This is not piano, this is profanation." - Cosi
Pianist #5 was...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51w7PvHB4jL._SL500_AA280_.jpg)
Jonathan Biss
-
Fourth place: Pianist #2
63 points
Good news: "either Brendel or Kempff" - Pim "it does sound rather Brendelian" - amw "really explained the music to me in a way the others didn't" - aukhawk "The high point is the way the pianist handles the transition point, very natural and well-thought." - trung224 "This has a more classical feel as opposed to a more romantic approach. " - Neal "proportion, rigor, seriousness and "ordinariness"" - amw "Everything sounds quite logical in this version, which is good, even if the result can sound a little cold." - Cosi
Bad news: "This is the only one I did not find very enjoyable" - sanantonio "In my notes I wrote "something is missing here" 3 different times." - Pat B "playing at start of excerpt feels a bit rushed; because the left hand is playing so much more loudly than the right during loud passages momentum is lost a few times." - 0spinboson "a tad underpowered. A tad sewing machine." - Ken B "a bit mechanical, with what seemed at times like banging on the keys." - NJ Joe "Almost dreaming. There are few strong contrasts" - Drosera "too all-or-nothing most of the time, louds are too loud, quiets too quiet." - amw "too straightforward and direct." - Greg "The second movement comes across as too fast." - amw
Pianist #2 is...
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-QF8mkqeHDpzoQI1Z4GZul0AApYQx51FzuvENSpHwgt7z3woxLTmK4ZDd-48CPtUPZ63h7vU0Q=w300)
Jean-Efflam Bavouzet
-
Third place: Pianist #3
58 points
Good news: "Great one, natural playing with good taste." - trung224 "The pianist obviously completely in his element. Beethoven specialist." - Drosera "Magnificent slow movement." - NJ Joe "had a live feel, which I liked. The performance is the sort whose fans call it "subtle" and whose detractors call it "underplayed." If Richter had played the Waldstein" - Pat B "With this kind of elegant, neat, perfect articulation, isn't this Gilels ?" - Cosi
Bad news: "odd with unnecessary changes in tempo" - amw "The beginning is how it should be played if you ask me. The crescendo was wtf" - Greg "This one is a bit of a Jekyl and Hyde for me." - Neal "seems a bit rushed overall, pianist doesn't seem to understand that pauses can also help to create contrast" - 0spinboson
Pianist #3 is...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51uxs4BVFEL._SY300__PJautoripBadge,BottomRight,4,-40_OU11__.jpg)
Emil Gilels
Second place: Pianist #1
48 points
Good news: "a relatively straightforward reading, but very well done." - Pat B "Pedaling choices agree with me, dynamics vary nicely." - 0spinboson "very slow seeming at first, emerging from the mist, Very very controlled. A thought out performance." - Ken B "Powerful, clear left hand. 3rd movement flows beautifully." - NJ Joe "Good rather than great, although it does grow on you." - Drosera "fluid, sweet toned, very even delivery" - aukhawk "I love the velvet sound in piano notes the pianist creates" - trung224 "strikingly graceful" - Greg "A solid performance never losing sight of the larger structure. I like it." - amw "Original (but weird) articulation, pedal, phrasing....Sounds like Gould, indeed." - Cosi
Bad news: "trying to be Glenn Gould without Glenn Gould's technique" - amw "the stop and start (use of silence) are too abrupt....played too deliberately" - Neal "not really enough power when needed" - Greg
Pianist #1 is...
(http://www.msrcd.com/cdcovers/cd431.jpg)
James Brawn
-
First place: Pianist #6
44 points
Neal and amw speculated (however briefly) that James Brawn and pianist #6 might be the same person at different times in their career.
Good news: "the best balance of freedom and strictness, best use of piano sonority" - amw "combines most of the good quality of other performances" - trung224 "Beautiful ringing tone. The music shines." - NJ Joe "Easy winner. Reminds me of Brendel." - Ken B "nicely flowing. Well-timed pauses" - 0spinboson "a little intellectual, but this is such a great vision. this is a symphony for piano solo. Of course it is Serkin" - Cosi
Bad news: "maybe a tad too slow" - Greg "a bit too pipe-and-slippers" - aukhawk "Cautious, deliberate and dull. Nothing much is happening here." - Drosera "not overly exciting" - Pim "a sense of delicacy (making it my other guess for Kempff), but there were some choices of dynamics and sustains that didn't make any sense to me." - Pat B "I want the trills smooth when the theme appears above, but with nearly every note from the theme I hear at the same time accents within the trill." - eumyang
Pianist #6 is indeed...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/615Y3Ov8QGL._SY300_.jpg)
Rudolf Serkin
Well I feel I dodged the look-like-an-idiot bullet. There's always next time. My choice was 6,3,1 so the rest of you were only a little bit off :-\
I had never heard any of these. I will think about buying Serkin, and I will feel smug about not buying Bavouzet's Debussy.
This was a lot of fun, and thanks to Brian for all the work.
Quote from: Brian on February 25, 2014, 07:55:32 PM
"If Richter had played the Waldstein" - Pat B
The rest of that sentence was, "this is what it would have
not sounded like" (emphasis added). Incidentally this is the only one of the 6 that I have.
No HJ Lim? ;)
Anyway, thanks for running this. I'm adding Biss to my list, and I'm sure I'll get Serkin at some point.
Having read the comments I declare Cosi the winner. He identified first and third --and he agreed with me on the second place being Gouldish. Impressive display.
Knowing the names I still stand by my preference. By names if given a choice I would go with Gilels. I'm not interested in any of the other pianists, including Serkin. I've never heard of those other four pianists before.
Thanks Brian.
Hmm. James Brawn has potential. Andrea Lucchesini should do a Schubert or Schumann cycle, perhaps on period instruments; I would definitely enjoy that more than his Beethoven. Emil Gilels was much less Russian than I expected.
No revelations here, but this was interesting—thanks.
Thanks for this intersting thread, Brian. I don't know much about James Brawn, but after this test, I will order his CD.
Speaking about sound-quality of clip, I found clip #3 (Gilels) suffered too much from the blur sound, compared to DGG CD , which I coincidently listened yesterday :D (without knowing that is '#3). This poor sound almost kill Gilels's astonishing piano tone, and reduced its ranking.
I'll add my thanks - that was good fun, and personally I shall certainly explore Bavouzet's recordings further.
Thanks Brian for the good work.
I would have liked if there had been a Brendel or a Kempff in this little selection. Just to see their fans thrashing them without knowing ::)
Nice to see my preferences more or less confirmed. I've always loved Gilels in Beethoven, but never been convinced by Serkin with this composer (yet).
Thanks Brian!
Thanks a lot Brian. I really enjoyed this.
My ranking was: 3 = 2 > 1 > 6 > 4 > 5
My lessons learned:
- Either I have to get the Bavouzet or re-listen to all cycles of Brendel again (and with more attention), just to avoid confusing those two in the future. I think I’ll go for option 1…. :)
- I’m happy to turn out to like Gilels
- I acquired the Serkin set only a couple of weeks ago, but wasn’t really thrilled by what I heard so far, so at least here I seem to be consistent
- Kempff….what can I do about Kempff? Shutting up is probably the wisest :blank:
Oh, and hat off to Cosi
Very interesting. Some thoughts:
- This confirms my disappointment with Gilels. You may remember I bought that set a year ago and couldn't believe how bad I thought it was. I had put it to the side in hopes it was a timing issue or something, but I really don't hear great Beethoven from him in that set.
- Lucchesini is a new name for me. Interesting that only a handful of us liked him.
- I don't understand the comments from others about 'dodging a bullet' or 'not wanting to look stupid'. We like what we like (at least at a given moment) and there is no shame in disliking a big name or liking a newcomer. This is the beauty of the blind listen - we are not prejudiced by the name attached, but instead listen to the music they make.
- I had wishlisted that Serkin, but based on what I heard I won't be rushing out to get it, so money saved!
- These lightning rounds can be just as interesting (and in some ways more) than the longer contests. Plus nice to have piano for a change. Nice work Brian!
Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 26, 2014, 02:55:56 AM
- This confirms my disappointment with Gilels. You may remember I bought that set a year ago and couldn't believe how bad I thought it was. I had put it to the side in hopes it was a timing issue or something, but I really don't hear great Beethoven from him in that set.... I had wishlisted that Serkin, but based on what I heard I won't be rushing out to get it,
;D :D ;D
Once again it's proven we have remarkable consistency in our opposite tastes 8) No surprise that 3 (Gilels) was my favorite, with Serkin taking the Silver and 4 (Lucchesini) my least favorite. Although I didn't actively participate, I listened to all the selections several times, and followed the commentary. I spotted Gilels immediately (which, I admit may have prejudiced my results: his was my first
Waldstein on CD and has been in my collection almost 30 years; that iceberg CD is desert island material).
Sarge
Now that the only glorious 6 minutes in Serkin's cycle has been located, the question is, does even Lim has 6 minutes of favorable piano fiddling?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 26, 2014, 02:55:56 AM
Very interesting. Some thoughts:
- This confirms my disappointment with Gilels. You may remember I bought that set a year ago and couldn't believe how bad I thought it was. I had put it to the side in hopes it was a timing issue or something, but I really don't hear great Beethoven from him in that set.
- Lucchesini is a new name for me. Interesting that only a handful of us liked him.
- I don't understand the comments from others about 'dodging a bullet' or 'not wanting to look stupid'. We like what we like (at least at a given moment) and there is no shame in disliking a big name or liking a newcomer. This is the beauty of the blind listen - we are not prejudiced by the name attached, but instead listen to the music they make.
- I had wishlisted that Serkin, but based on what I heard I won't be rushing out to get it, so money saved!
- These lightning rounds can be just as interesting (and in some ways more) than the longer contests. Plus nice to have piano for a change. Nice work Brian!
Looking stupid is just what Cosi is wishing for us Kempff and Brendel fans! To trash him in a blind listen. I was lucky enough to praise the recordings of the only 2 here who, had you asked me, I'd have said yeah great pianist, like him.
Quote from: G. String on February 26, 2014, 04:02:30 AM
Now that the only glorious 6 minutes in Serkin's cycle has been located, the question is, does even Lim has 6 minutes of favorable piano fiddling?
Well, I love her Moonlight's Adagio sostenuto...but that's only four and a half minutes ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 26, 2014, 04:36:46 AM
Well, I love her Moonlight's Adagio sostenuto...but that's only four and a half minutes ;D
Sarge
I get the distinct feeling HJ Lim has few admirers here. I've never heard a note by her.
Quote from: Ken B on February 26, 2014, 04:54:13 AM
I get the distinct feeling HJ Lim has few admirers here. I've never heard a note by her.
Yeah, there are only a couple of us who appreciate her Beethoven. I do...in small doses. I like Brian's characterization: "a hyperactive retriever." There is something like a rambunctious, overly eager, slightly clumsy puppy in her playing. I think it's endearing but it's also exhausting.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 26, 2014, 03:33:00 AM
;D :D ;D
Once again it's proven we have remarkable consistency in our opposite tastes 8) No surprise that 3 (Gilels) was my favorite, with Serkin taking the Silver and 4 (Lucchesini) my least favorite. Although I didn't actively participate, I listened to all the selections several times, and followed the commentary. I spotted Gilels immediately (which, I admit may have prejudiced my results: his was my first Waldstein on CD and has been in my collection almost 30 years; that iceberg CD is desert island material).
Sarge
Amazing. Really, what are the odds that across so many works, time periods, genres, etc., there would be ANY consistency at all? We do seem to be more in line though when it comes to some of the large-scale/large-orchestra works. For example, we both liked Haitink's second Bruckner 9.
Quote from: amw on February 25, 2014, 09:36:00 PMAndrea Lucchesini should do a Schubert or Schumann cycle, perhaps on period instruments
Lucchesini has recorded the Impromptus. They are superb. One problem with this comparison is that the full beauty of Lucchesini's tone does not come through in MP3. I recently converted his entire cycle to MP3, and when compared to the CDs, something big is missing. Anyway, perhaps had 27/1 been selected, the results would have been different.
Quote from: trung224 on February 25, 2014, 11:31:10 PMThis poor sound almost kill Gilels's astonishing piano tone, and reduced its ranking.
Yep. And the sound samples so obviously hampered the dynamic range in Brawn's recording, that it is impossible for me to know what his recording is really like until I get the cycle when it's done. I'm reminded also of the Gaspard blind listening round where Bavouzet's set, which is beautifully if distantly recorded on disc, came across as quite poor sounding in the comparisons. These comparisons really need to use WAV files.
Quote from: Ken B on February 26, 2014, 04:12:20 AM
Looking stupid is just what Cosi is wishing for us Kempff and Brendel fans! To trash him in a blind listen. I was lucky enough to praise the recordings of the only 2 here who, had you asked me, I'd have said yeah great pianist, like him.
:D I'm saying that only as a joke of course. Nobody is supposed to be ridiculed in that kind of exercise (or on such a forum in general), this is just not the point.
Quote from: Cosi bel do on February 26, 2014, 06:20:42 AM
:D I'm saying that only as a joke of course. Nobody is supposed to be ridiculed in that kind of exercise (or on such a forum in general), this is just not the point.
And if in a blind guess the composer thread a Stockhausen fan said "just random sounds, no interest at all" I pinky swear I wouldn't chortle either.
>:D
;D
Actually, this is why a blind comparison is not a guess or a test. This is an interesting exercise because it allows to have everyone's opinion WITHOUT the bias of knowing who plays, therefore someone who likes Kempff could criticize his version, but someone who hates him could also like what he does. And anyway, this does not mean you must stop loving a recording you've always liked. Knowing its weaknesses could even make you like it more.
Quote from: trung224 on February 25, 2014, 11:31:10 PM
Speaking about sound-quality of clip, I found clip #3 (Gilels) suffered too much from the blur sound, compared to DGG CD , which I coincidently listened yesterday :D (without knowing that is '#3). This poor sound almost kill Gilels's astonishing piano tone, and reduced its ranking.
Quote from: Todd on February 26, 2014, 06:07:28 AM
Yep. These comparisons really need to use WAV files.
Can't agree. There is a difference in the quality, but it sounds just as bad whether in mp3 or lossless. My ranking certainly would not have changed because of it, nor does his tone change significantly between the sample and my original. Actually, I don't even understand what 'astonishing piano tone' means. I cannot think of ANY pianist that has this (or rather, perhaps they all have it). I am quite perplexed by these statements.
Quote from: Todd on February 26, 2014, 06:07:28 AM
Yep. And the sound samples so obviously hampered the dynamic range in Brawn's recording, that it is impossible for me to know what his recording is really like until I get the cycle when it's done. I'm reminded also of the Gaspard blind listening round where Bavouzet's set, which is beautifully if distantly recorded on disc, came across as quite poor sounding in the comparisons. These comparisons really need to use WAV files.
Well, for future tests it's probably preferable to offer higher bitrate mp3s (-v2 or better for variable), or lossless files, in order to exclude the possibility of dynamic compression by the mp3 encoder (especially since programs like Audition still tend to use outdated Fraunhofer encoders instead of state of the art Lame encoders).
Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 26, 2014, 06:34:19 AMThere is a difference in the quality, but it sounds just as bad whether in mp3 or lossless.
How can there be a difference in quality, yet they sound just as bad?
Anyway, my experience is very clearly different from yours when comparing MP3 and WAV.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 26, 2014, 06:34:19 AM
Can't agree. There is a difference in the quality, but it sounds just as bad whether in mp3 or lossless. My ranking certainly would not have changed because of it, nor does his tone change significantly between the sample and my original. Actually, I don't even understand what 'astonishing piano tone' means. I cannot think of ANY pianist that has this (or rather, perhaps they all have it). I am quite perplexed by these statements.
There are many scientifically proven studies on the net that distinguishing between over 192kbps mp3s and lossless format is impossible except psychologically fooling yourself. In addition to that, if you don't use an external digital-to-analog convertor to listen to music from your Windows PC that is connected to a quality sound system, the results are identical.
Quote from: Todd on February 26, 2014, 07:03:15 AM
How can there be a difference in quality, yet they sound just as bad?
Anyway, my experience is very clearly different from yours when comparing MP3 and WAV.
The playing sounds just as bad (or the same if you prefer something less negative) regardless of the quality of the sound.
Lesson learned for next time. I used Audacity to join the movements in each of the files, after carefully ripping 320 kbps MP3 files from CD sources (except Biss and Bavouzet, which were MP3 downloads at the same bit rate). But then Audacity automatically compressed each file without asking me, down to something like 128, which is low enough that you can tell the difference. If I'd discovered this at the start, it could have been resolved, but since it was after creating all five, honestly irritation/exasperation set in.
So my next game likely won't require any file-editing, or if it does, it will be after a careful comb through all the options and settings. Another issue is, suppose I had provided FLACs of the recordings I owned on CD; my download copy of Bavouzet could have been FLAC, but ClassicsOnline doesn't send me lossless files so audiophiles might have perceived Jonathan Biss at a disadvantage.
One more thought. I've been listening extra hard to James Brawn's CD in light of this. At first I dismissed him as "good but not great." He's still good but not great, but he never does anything wrong, has pretty good taste, and gets better with each listen. Will look forward to upcoming volumes of his cycle, especially if they send me free copies. :P
Quote from: Ken B on February 25, 2014, 08:11:51 PM
I had never heard any of these. I will think about buying Serkin, and I will feel smug about not buying Bavouzet's Debussy.
Now now, Beethoven and Debussy are very different!
Quote from: amw on February 25, 2014, 09:36:00 PM
Hmm. James Brawn has potential. Andrea Lucchesini should do a Schubert or Schumann cycle, perhaps on period instruments; I would definitely enjoy that more than his Beethoven. Emil Gilels was much less Russian than I expected.
Like Todd said, Lucchesini has recorded the Schubert impromptus, and they are superb. They're on Avie, so still available, unlike the Beethoven.
[asin]B003KK7MIU[/asin]
Quote from: G. String on February 26, 2014, 04:02:30 AM
Now that the only glorious 6 minutes in Serkin's cycle has been located, the question is, does even Lim has 6 minutes of favorable piano fiddling?
I remember liking several individual moments from HJ Lim's cycle. Checking on my full-length review (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2012/Sept12/Beethoven_Lim_4649522.htm), I find this:
"Lim's 'Appassionata' (Op. 57) is one of the best parts of her cycle. I should have known this would be. It has all the traits in which she excels: loudness, speed, emotional distance, forbidding unknowability, and brutal coldness. The first movement sizzles, the second maintains a stoic mask such that its inner peace is always in question, and the finale is more or less a headlong blitz to the finish except when the 'presto' coda arrives and she, of course, slows down, broadening the coda's first chords so wide you could sit on them. Only some watery, stumbling runs up and down the keyboard and botched chords serve to remind us of the fundamental enigma of HJ Lim: that she wishes to play everything like a demon-possessed super-pianist without having the ability to actually do so."
Apparently I also loved the finale of her "Pathetique" and enjoyed parts of Op 27/1.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 26, 2014, 07:17:12 AMThe playing sounds just as bad (or the same if you prefer something less negative) regardless of the quality of the sound.
Got it, makes sense.
Quote from: Brian on February 26, 2014, 07:19:02 AMLesson learned for next time. I used Audacity to join the movements in each of the files, after carefully ripping 320 kbps MP3 files from CD sources (except Biss and Bavouzet, which were MP3 downloads at the same bit rate). But then Audacity automatically compressed each file without asking me, down to something like 128, which is low enough that you can tell the difference. If I'd discovered this at the start, it could have been resolved, but since it was after creating all five, honestly irritation/exasperation set in.
Whatever bit rate or codec was used, the degradation of sound was obvious. There is a bizarre, undulating distortion. I know that people are not supposed to be able to pick out high bit rate MP3 (ie, 320) when compared to CD, yet I've been able to do it, at least when comparing a CD to a CD-to 320 MP3-back to CD conversions. That was with an older version of EAC doing the file conversions. Newer software probably works better. I know the FLACs I got and then converted to WAV for Leotta's Beethoven sounded fine, but then that's FLAC.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 26, 2014, 02:55:56 AM
- I don't understand the comments from others about 'dodging a bullet' or 'not wanting to look stupid'. We like what we like (at least at a given moment) and there is no shame in disliking a big name or liking a newcomer. This is the beauty of the blind listen - we are not prejudiced by the name attached, but instead listen to the music they make.
For me it's basically tongue-in-cheek, and that's how I interpret it from others.
Quote from: Ken B on February 26, 2014, 04:54:13 AM
I get the distinct feeling HJ Lim has few admirers here. I've never heard a note by her.
I heard one sonata over the radio, and wasn't paying close enough attention to critique it. But yes, she is not generally held in high esteem around here. Before mentioning her yesterday, I listened to samples of her Waldstein and was decidedly not enamored with it.
Quote from: Brian on February 26, 2014, 07:19:02 AM
Lesson learned for next time. I used Audacity to join the movements in each of the files, after carefully ripping 320 kbps MP3 files from CD sources (except Biss and Bavouzet, which were MP3 downloads at the same bit rate). But then Audacity automatically compressed each file without asking me, down to something like 128, which is low enough that you can tell the difference. If I'd discovered this at the start, it could have been resolved, but since it was after creating all five, honestly irritation/exasperation set in.
So my next game likely won't require any file-editing, or if it does, it will be after a careful comb through all the options and settings. Another issue is, suppose I had provided FLACs of the recordings I owned on CD; my download copy of Bavouzet could have been FLAC, but ClassicsOnline doesn't send me lossless files so audiophiles might have perceived Jonathan Biss at a disadvantage.
My humble advice from experience and technical knowledge is, to convert classical music to mp3, use dbpoweramp with
MP3(lame),
Target: Quality(VBR),
Variable bit quality: -V 0 (estimated bit rate 240kbps) "extreme" --> this means the slider sits on the far right,
Encoding: Does not make perceptible sound difference so does not matter.
settings.
Very easy to use and basic functions are free.
Quote from: Todd on February 26, 2014, 07:46:53 AMI know that people are not supposed to be able to pick out high bit rate MP3 (ie, 320) when compared to CD, yet I've been able to do it, at least when comparing a CD to a CD-to 320 MP3-back to CD conversions.
I
suspect that has to do with sample rate rather than bit rate. MP3s are usually 44.1kHz, which basically means the range of frequencies is compressed to fit inside 22.05kHz. (The sample rate of an uncompressed recording is something like 1.4MHz; frequencies in music can typically be up to 120kHz.) ~21kHz is supposed to be the maximum humans are capable of hearing, but I doubt that to be true. Even if not directly audible, the higher frequencies act as harmonics modifying the sounds we can hear. This is particularly noticeable comparing compressed cymbals, snare drums, violins, etc, to uncompressed ones (at least for me). Of course everyone's hearing is different, and changes over time, as well.
I can't tell the difference between 192kbps (or VBR) and 320kbps MP3 though.
For Audacity, when exporting an MP3 there should be an option on the export dialog. I think it literally says "Option". Then you click on it and can change the bitrate and whatever (and I think it remembers that for next time).
Quote from: amw on February 26, 2014, 09:04:26 AM
I suspect that has to do with sample rate rather than bit rate. MP3s are usually 44.1kHz, which basically means the range of frequencies is compressed to fit inside 22.05kHz. (The sample rate of an uncompressed recording is something like 1.4MHz; frequencies in music can typically be up to 120kHz.) ~21kHz is supposed to be the maximum humans are capable of hearing, but I doubt that to be true. Even if not directly audible, the higher frequencies act as harmonics modifying the sounds we can hear.
http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_frequencycheckhigh.php < Feel free to test it. (Mind that not all sound cards will be able to reproduce high frequencies reliably; same goes for speakers/head phones ofc.)
Quote from: amw on February 26, 2014, 09:04:26 AM
I suspect that has to do with sample rate rather than bit rate. MP3s are usually 44.1kHz, which basically means the range of frequencies is compressed to fit inside 22.05kHz. (The sample rate of an uncompressed recording is something like 1.4MHz; frequencies in music can typically be up to 120kHz.) ~21kHz is supposed to be the maximum humans are capable of hearing, but I doubt that to be true. Even if not directly audible, the higher frequencies act as harmonics modifying the sounds we can hear.
No.
The sample rate of CDs is 44.1kHz. Typically mp3 compression does not change the sample rate.
The bit rate of uncompressed CD-quality audio is about 1.4 Mbps.
20kHz is the generally accepted audible maximum for humans. Some people have a lower limit, some have a higher limit. Nobody can hear 120kHz, and even if you could, your playback equipment probably can't reproduce it. Harmonics are no different. If you can't hear a 30kHz fundamental then you can't hear a 30kHz harmonic. The highest-pitched orchestral instruments go up to about 4kHz, so even at the very top of their range a 44kHz sample rate signal can represent many harmonics.
mp3 depends a lot on the encoder. The early (1990s) encoders were really bad (e.g. underwater cymbals). Newer ones are better. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the older ones are still in use.
Mods feel free to move this discussion to a more appropriate thread.
Brian just said that it was doubly compressed so I think we can drop the technical arguments. The samples did sound worse than radio. Yuck!
Quote from: 0spinboson on February 26, 2014, 10:29:20 AM
http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_frequencycheckhigh.php < Feel free to test it. (Mind that not all sound cards will be able to reproduce high frequencies reliably; same goes for speakers/head phones ofc.)
Cool. I did the audio checks too. Hearing still good, but cannot hear 19k and 18k intermittent, maybe need a quieter room. Or its the headphones :)
Quote from: Pat B on February 26, 2014, 10:53:27 AM
No.
Hmm. I suspected I was talking nonsense but knew there was something going on with high frequencies that I remembered.
Some research led me to this (http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548). They're inaudible, but affect our
perception of sound.
But then more research led me to this (http://www.stereophile.com/content/whats-going-there-page-3) which says, actually, pianos don't make any sound above 15 kHz anyway, so the problem with MP3s probably has more to do with sampling algorithms and so on.
Now I'm confused. Too much science for my tiny arts-major brain. Oh well.
Quote from: amw on February 26, 2014, 11:43:22 AM
Hmm. I suspected I was talking nonsense but knew there was something going on with high frequencies that I remembered.
Some research led me to this (http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548). They're inaudible, but affect our perception of sound.
But then more research led me to this (http://www.stereophile.com/content/whats-going-there-page-3) which says, actually, pianos don't make any sound above 15 kHz anyway, so the problem with MP3s probably has more to do with sampling algorithms and so on.
Now I'm confused. Too much science for my tiny arts-major brain. Oh well.
Regardless of the technical underpinnings, you seem to have a pretty good grasp on what works for you. Beyond that, don't worry about it. Enjoy the music. :)
Well, I picked the two bottom finishers as my two top choices. Interesting about Biss: while immersing myself in the Gulda set last year, I was hungry to read something about the sonatas. I wound up reading Biss's short book Beethoven's Shadow, and enjoying it thoroughly. Although he wasn't on my short list of future Beethoven sonata purchases (Fischer, Gilels, Richter, and Serkin were) I will now reconsider, although Fischer still remains at the top.
Thank you so much Brian for organizing this, it was a lot of fun. As I am almost always under limited time constraints, I really enjoyed the "short clip" format.
Those interested in Serkin should take note of his Diabellis, which are apparently not in the box Brian posted.
Bavouzet's second volume is approaching the peak of Mt. ListenTo, so I can't comment directly. Whether or not you liked this clip, I would suggest checking into his Debussy cycle.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 26, 2014, 05:59:01 PM
Those interested in Serkin should take note of his Diabellis, which are apparently not in the box Brian posted.
Hey, those are my reference recording of that piece. And I forgot about the Serkin LvB piano concertos I grew up with on cassette. No surprise I liked his Waldstein I guess.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 26, 2014, 05:59:01 PMThose interested in Serkin should take note of his Diabellis, which are apparently not in the box Brian posted.
The '57 Marlboro Diabellis are included, but the remastering used is not as good as some others. The crickets are gone, and the sound is a bit duller. I had to keep an earlier Sony France remastering to hear the performance in all its glory.
Quote from: Todd on February 26, 2014, 06:29:37 PM
The '57 Marlboro Diabellis are included, but the remastering used is not as good as some others. The crickets are gone, and the sound is a bit duller. I had to keep an earlier Sony France remastering to hear the performance in all its glory.
My copy is this. I don't remember any crickets.
No information is given about remastering, but the copyright date was 2002.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41nWEQ8XbkL._SY300_.jpg)
That was my first recording of the Diabellis. Followed soon thereafter by the Brilliant box containing Brendel's recordings of all the variations and other pieces that was originally done for Vox; I remember that the idea that I would now have two recordings of the same piece was a negative. ;D
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 26, 2014, 06:48:10 PM
My copy is this. I don't remember any crickets.
No information is given about remastering, but the copyright date was 2002.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41nWEQ8XbkL._SY300_.jpg)
Tracks 32 and 33 have them. Well, either crickets or something mechanical that sounds a lot like crickets. That's the remastering to have, and still probably the best Diabelli recording I've heard.
Quote from: Todd on February 26, 2014, 07:01:29 PM
Tracks 32 and 33 have them. Well, either crickets or something mechanical that sounds a lot like crickets. That's the remastering to have, and still probably the best Diabelli recording I've heard.
And so I got it as absolute beginner's luck?!
I don't have time tonight for the whole thing, but I'll get it and listen to those two tracks, once the current CD is over (also Beethoven: Abbado/BPO doing Opp. 92 and 93)
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 26, 2014, 07:08:21 PMAnd so I got it as absolute beginner's luck?!
That can happen sometimes. If memory serves, the CBS Odyssey issue of the same recording was my second or third version, and this reissue came a few years later, and nothing has quite matched, let alone bettered it. Hearing Anton Kuerti play it live was probably at the same level, but that was but a fleeting experience.
I cannot believe I chose Serkin....one of my all time favorites! Kind of proud that I put him in first out of the group. And it looks like I better take a look at getting #5's cd! Thanks, Brian.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 26, 2014, 07:08:21 PM
And so I got it as absolute beginner's luck?!
I prefer the more euphonious "intuition".
Quote from: Ken B on February 26, 2014, 07:31:08 PM
I prefer the more euphonious "intuition".
The fact that it was one of the only two versions at my local Borders (not sure how many hundreds of CDs I ended up buying there in the next few years, as it slowly dwindled and then went out of business) was the main reason I got it. The other version was the Brendel box I got a few weeks later.
Now playing tracks 32 and 33 of that CD. Not hearing crickets, but I do hear what appears to be some Gould like vocalizing randomly appearing in a ghostlike way.
ETA: there is some further noise on track 34, including what sounds like someone stepping on something crunchy.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 26, 2014, 07:41:48 PMNow playing tracks 32 and 33 of that CD. Not hearing crickets, but I do hear what appears to be some Gould like vocalizing randomly appearing in a ghostlike way.
Serkin vocalizes a little throughout. The crickets are noticeable in the quieter passages.
Quote from: Todd on February 26, 2014, 07:46:51 PM
Serkin vocalizes a little throughout. The crickets are noticeable in the quieter passages.
I didn't notice them. But as I stated before, there are benefits to using a cheap CD player....
Listening again (it's not like it's a chore to listen to this recording, after all!)
Seems like many people in the audience were squirming in their seats (or at least getting more comfortable for the last few minutes of the performance), and a couple of doors were opened or closed.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 26, 2014, 07:41:48 PM
The fact that it was one of the only two versions at my local Borders (not sure how many hundreds of CDs I ended up buying there in the next few years, as it slowly dwindled and then went out of business) was the main reason I got it. The other version was the Brendel box I got a few weeks later.
Now playing tracks 32 and 33 of that CD. Not hearing crickets, but I do hear what appears to be some Gould like vocalizing randomly appearing in a ghostlike way.
ETA: there is some further noise on track 34, including what sounds like someone stepping on something crunchy.
Yeah but you
chose that store.
::)
Forgive me: what are "crickets"?
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 26, 2014, 07:55:05 PMSeems like many people in the audience were squirming in their seats (or at least getting more comfortable for the last few minutes of the performance)
There's some audience noise, but there's also some crickets a chirpin'. (http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-11090/) (Or maybe one, if Distler is right.) Every once in a while, animals intrude, like some birds in Blandine Verlet's Froburger recording, or in some of the Fitzwilliam's DSCH quartet recordings.
Quote from: NJ Joe on February 27, 2014, 03:33:00 AMForgive me: what are "crickets"?
(http://www.knockoutpest.com/images/pest-control-crickets.jpg)
Serkin top choice for the Waldstein..... some thoughts
Amazingly, this is not even Serkin's best version of Op 53
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Y2JslPoQL._SX300_.jpg)
this one is and also my all time favourite.
Many pianists can play the Introduzione and Rondo well but fall well short on the first movement. Maybe a segment of this could have been added to the mix.
Well done Brian for putting this together.
Now that we've all had a listen, out of all the recordings that you own or have heard, what is the stand out performance for you?
Quote from: NJ Joe on February 26, 2014, 02:08:56 PM
Thank you so much Brian for organizing this, it was a lot of fun. As I am almost always under limited time constraints, I really enjoyed the "short clip" format.
Love organizing these! I think the next one might be Chopin's Nocturne in C minor, Op. 48 No. 1, in 3-4 months.
Quote from: Todd on February 27, 2014, 05:34:56 AM
There's some audience noise, but there's also some crickets a chirpin'. (http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-11090/) (Or maybe one, if Distler is right.) Every once in a while, animals intrude, like some birds in Blandine Verlet's Froburger recording, or in some of the Fitzwilliam's DSCH quartet recordings.
(http://www.knockoutpest.com/images/pest-control-crickets.jpg)
I didn't know you literally meant crickets! I thought it was some kind of slang term for audience noise or coughing, or something else.
Quote from: NJ Joe on February 27, 2014, 04:28:48 PM
I didn't know you literally meant crickets! I thought it was some kind of slang term
I say, old chap, that wasn't very cricket!
A long time ago I worked in a sound studio where the echo chamber was, actually, an echo chamber. As opposed to a pair of large metal plates as was more common at that time, or a 'box of bits' as it would have been 15 years ago, or a software plugin as it would be be now.
This was just a bare-walled rectangular room with a loudspeaker and a microphone in it, some distance from the main control room. I think the facility dated back to the '30s and I'm not sure anybody actually knew where the room was any more - but the mic was still working. In winter, it would flood, so if you invoked the fader marked 'reverb' there was a chance of hearing some gentle lapping.
Then in the spring, of course birds nested in it ...
Okay, good, I know of a new pianist to check out now: James Brawn.
Seems he's very obscure right now, but hopefully that will not always be the case.
First video I check out of his on youtube and I'm thinking that I can't imagine a better interpretation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDE9mSnfN0g
Quote from: Holden on February 27, 2014, 11:09:48 AM
Now that we've all had a listen, out of all the recordings that you own or have heard, what is the stand out performance for you?
The two by Lubimov, and Badura Skoda's on Astree.
I think there's so much percussive music the sonata that the texture is more attractive on a piano with less resonance than a Steinway, especially in the allegro. And at the end too, in the fast music in the 3rd movement, I hear more composure on an older instrument than a on a big modern grand -- Serkin in that mono recording you like so much just sounds rushed and hectic to me, compared with (for example) Lubimov's 2012 recording. I also find that the strong accents, sforzandi, sound more natural on the old pianos than the modern ones, less intrusive.
Of course there are some wonderful recordings on modern piano, like Arrau's digital one, made very late in his life. And indeed Cziffra's studio one has always been a favourite because of the originality of his conception of the music, and his poise. But I think that the ones on old Viennese pianos are particularly revealing.
I found the Brawn recording on Spotify and with all due respect to Brian, the excerpts don't do it justice as Brawn's 'big picture' concept of each movement is obviously not evident. This is a very good recording in that it is extremely well played and interpreted and is not like anyone I've heard in this sonata before. I'm going to listen the rest of his LvB on Spotify to see if I can get an overall impression of his approach to LvB.
My Waldstein recordings (CD and DVD) in no particular order include:
Arrau, Gilels (x3), Rudolf Serkin (x2), Rubinstein, Cziffra, Schnabel, Barenboim (EMI), Hungerford, Annie Fischer, Kempff (mono), Levy, Brendel (1st version), Ciani, Tomsic, Lamond, Solomon (my first recording) Kovacevich, Pollini, Willems, Houstoun, Lupu.