Schnabel or Hewitt?

[Dancing Divertimentian]

There doesn't seem to be any passion and I am wondering if she is one of those very analytical musicians who are also great musicologists. They know a hell of a lot about the music they are playing but getting it across to people like me is another matter. I felt the same way about Schiff's LvB so maybe the two are very similar.

There is of course more than one way to slice the "passion" pie. Overt wiz-bang displays are one way, which I have no aversion to at all. However, there is a more subtle way which seems to be a bit more difficult to detect. Subtlety is for me the chiefest form of passion. When a performer (like Hewitt) can dig deep into the music and find all sorts of hidden goodies I can think of nothing more exciting. ESPECIALLY when any number of performers around them seem oblivious to these subtleties.

Add to this color, intricate yet brilliant shading, nuance, and a sort of singing aspect and what it all adds up to is nothing short of virile.

This kind of approach of course will never make the headlines in Hot Rod magazine but there's no mistaking its power.   

[Holden]

Sounds like you don't like Bach much  (runs away).

I love Bach. When I went through my one and only bout of clinical depression it was Bach that I turned to instead of the medication I was offered and his music came through for me.

As a pianist and part time organist I revel in many of his great keyboard works, the WTC being the greatest IMO and one that he never transcribed for other instruments to my knowledge. The Partitas, for example were reworked for other instruments and ensembles and this is the genius of Bach. Bach's music sounds great regardless of whether it's being played on the violin, pipe organ or scored for voice. To look at Bach from a purely HIP perspective does the man and his music a serious disservice.

[RJR]

Are there any recordings where you can actually hear Schnabel well? The Beethoven recordings are so scratchy and distracting, it's almost impossible to hear the pianist! Are there others that are better?

I have owned the Schnabel/Beethoven complete sonatas on Angel for over forty years and I never had any problems hearing the pianist.

[starrynight]

That may be the difference.  I don't really want a Bach pianist to be compelling, so much as transparent.  Hewitt is good at creating a texture of impressive clarity, and in bring out little details that might easily be missed.

But being well recorded helps too, Schnabel didn't have the advantage of beautiful recorded sound.

[starrynight]

You betcha!  Transparency means you can hear everything the composer put in there (as if he meant it to be heard!)--like looking at the world through a clear pane of glass--instead of having some details buried under a mass of, say, thick strings (think Herbie the K)--like looking at the world through tinted wax paper.  A quality some of us value highly in conductors, performers, recordings, and sound reproduction systems.  Abbado, Boulez, Berglund, Chailly, for instance, come to mind as conductors who value transparency and seek orchestral balances that allow details to be heard.   And the clarity of line in Hewitt's Bach is a thing of beauty to my ears.

Again, the quality of recording now helps them to do that much more easily.  Performers in the past have brought out details and had clarity of line, had nice texture  but you have to listen a bit closer to hear it.

[Scarpia]

Again, the quality of recording now helps them to do that much more easily.  Performers in the past have brought out details and had clarity of line, had nice texture  but you have to listen a bit closer to hear it.

Why should I strain to try and hear clarity of line in wretched old recordings when there are so many wonderful recordings being made today?

[Bulldog]

Why should I strain to try and hear clarity of line in wretched old recordings when there are so many wonderful recordings being made today?

I don't think there's any "strain" involved.

Take Walter Gieseking's Schumann.  There may be a few wonderful modern recordings of Schumann's solo piano music, but nobody sounds like Gieseking.  If you want Gieseking's Schumann (and I sure do), you have to live with the relatively poor sound. 

There are quite a few other artists who are "one of a kind"; you can stack up all the wonderful modern recordings you want, but none of them can duplicate those one of a kind performers.

[Scarpia]

I don't think there's any "strain" involved.

Take Walter Gieseking's Schumann.  There may be a few wonderful modern recordings of Schumann's solo piano music, but nobody sounds like Gieseking.  If you want Gieseking's Schumann (and I sure do), you have to live with the relatively poor sound. 

I know Gieseking through his famous Debussy set.  Sound wasn't the issue, for whatever reason it didn't "grab" me.  It left me with no curiosity to hear his other recordings.  Maybe I should try his Schumann, but I just got Kempff's set (and a couple of recordings by Hewitt) and building up my Schumann collection is not a priority at the moment.  I am willing to tolerate poor sound if I feel the performance is really unique.  But mostly I find that modern performers are just as interesting as "historical" performers and opt for better sound, all else equal.

[starrynight]

Some might argue that at times modern recordings can be obsessed with technical perfection over interpretation.  Not saying that is always the case and I am only talking in general terms.  Also I wonder if some people at times can fall in love with the sound quality of something (which can be as much because of the production as performance) nearly as much as the actual interpretation with some modern recordings.

[Scarpia]

Some might argue that at times modern recordings can be obsessed with technical perfection over interpretation.  Not saying that is always the case and I am only talking in general terms.  Also I wonder if some people at times can fall in love with the sound quality of something (which can be as much because of the production as performance) nearly as much as the actual interpretation with some modern recordings.

There certainly are people in the world who are obsessed with their stereos, but I don't notice much of that around here.  Mostly people here discuss their rigs as a means to hear the music better, rather than as an end in itself.

With regard to recording quality, one of the reasons I like classical music is the refinement of real acoustic instruments rather than cruder, artificial sound production.  So sound quality it is a factor, but not the primary factor.

[Marc]

Hewitt by 9½ furlongs.

She's the Secretariat of pianists.

No. Black Caviar.

Angela's a filly, isn't she?
And still racing.

(Apology for the late respond.)