Franz Liszt - A Critical Discography

[San Antone]

See what you think of this one from Tatyana Pikaizen, which I liked because of the timbres, percussive.

http://www.youtube.com/v/RST0juG46X8

There were some things I liked, but too many sections where I felt she was pushing too hard.  E.g., the marcato section with the fast passagework leading up to the octaves just before the grandioso theme.  She was very rough with the motives above and below the arpeggios, and her fingers seemed to be behind her brain with the passage work.  Liszt would comment to his students about not playing these fast passages like macaroni and I think this is kind of playing he was referring to.  I also did not like how she took the fugato, all the energy seemed to seep out. 

I had not heard of her before, so thanks for bringing her to my attention.  I will be on the look-out if she ever has an opportunity to record it.  Hopefully she will re-think some of her interpretive ideas.  She seems to have the chops for the work, but there is a kind of abruptness in many areas that I think could be done much better.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Avie Music - AVI8553269
Presto Classical

FYI, it should be noted here that the label is actually Cavi, not Avie.

A pianist can perform this work with technical perfection, i.e. finger perfect, thrilling for sure; or they can play the work with virtuosic abandon, i.e. taking risks which may push them beyond their technical control.  They cannot do both except on rare occasions, e.g. Martha Argerich's amazing recording.  Ms. Pacini chose the former path: finger perfect but not playing with the demonic abandon that defines the greatest performances.

I've enjoyed reading your overview of recorded performances of the sonata sanantonio but I don't agree with the premise that for a performance to be "one of the greatest" it must blow the walls off the hall with "demonic abandon". That only gives half the picture of the music. It's not all swashbuckling razzle-dazzle, much to the chagrin of many a keyboard wizard wannabe.

For a performance to really take off there needs to be a meeting of the minds of sorts between the pianist and Liszt's poetic side - in other words, no backing away from Liszt's helter-skelter psyche (much like approaching Schubert). Without a fearless dip into Liszt's electrically crackling emotional world there's no chance the sonata will ever become all it can be.

That's exactly the sensation I get from Pacini's performance - that she's traversed the rocky road and managed to uncover just what makes Liszt the man tick (how a woman can do this I couldn't say! ).

But Pacini doesn't work the poetic angle as a simple end in itself. She's got chops (Argerich doesn't give her approval lightly...EVER). That should be evident. To me this performance works because it's EXACLY what a snapshot of Liszt's psyche must look like: the fiery, the cliff-hanging, the slightly schizoid, and yes, the intense raining beauty. It's a true window into Liszt's soul. And thanks to Pacini I feel I've gotten to know Liszt just that much more.

Pacini turns in a very good performance, but there are too many better ones out there to single hers out.

Not on your life, buster.

[San Antone]

FYI, it should be noted here that the label is actually Cavi, not Avie.

Thanks.  I will update my notes

I've enjoyed reading your overview of recorded performances of the sonata sanantonio but I don't agree with the premise that for a performance to be "one of the greatest" it must blow the walls off the hall with "demonic abandon". That only gives half the picture of the music. It's not all swashbuckling razzle-dazzle, much to the chagrin of many a keyboard wizard wannabe.

I may have overstressed my wish for fearless abandon in the playing (which can only be acomplisheed by pianists with no technical limitations).  To be more accurate, what I really think brings a performance of this work to the greatest level is a combination of virtuosic power, complete mastery of the "poetry" and a no-fear approach so that even a pianist like Richter would miss notes etc. while turning in an overwhelming performance.  To do otherwsie, i.e. pull back from the edge in order to get the right notes, I think leaves the performance wanting.

For a performance to really take off there needs to be a meeting of the minds of sorts between the pianist and Liszt's poetic side - in other words, no backing away from Liszt's helter-skelter psyche (much like approaching Schubert). Without a fearless dip into Liszt's electrically crackling emotional world there's no chance the sonata will ever become all it can be.

We might be looking for the same things but saying it in different ways.

That's exactly the sensation I get from Pacini's performance - that she's traversed the rocky road and managed to uncover just what makes Liszt the man tick (how a woman can do this I couldn't say! ).

But Pacini doesn't work the poetic angle as a simple end in itself. She's got chops (Argerich doesn't give her approval lightly...EVER). That should be evident. To me this performance works because it's EXACLY what a snapshot of Liszt's psyche must look like: the fiery, the cliff-hanging, the slightly schizoid, and yes, the intense raining beauty. It's a true window into Liszt's soul. And thanks to Pacini I feel I've gotten to know Liszt just that much more.

It just happens that I am not as strong on her performance as you are.  It's not like there's a hard and fast "right or wrong"; it's not unusual for two people hear the same recording differently. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I may have overstressed my wish for fearless abandon in the playing (which can only be acomplisheed by pianists with no technical limitations).  To be more accurate, what I really think brings a performance of this work to the greatest level is a combination of virtuosic power, complete mastery of the "poetry" and a no-fear approach so that even a pianist like Richter would miss notes etc. while turning in an overwhelming performance.  To do otherwsie, i.e. pull back from the edge in order to get the right notes, I think leaves the performance wanting.

I can understand the "thrill" of hearing a passage momentarily derailed (yeah, I own many Richter recordings ) but unless it's Richter doing it no one else need apply. So that narrows down the playing field...a ton!!

What other pianists do you feel bring more to the table in this piece (or any other piece) when they hit a wrong note (or two or ten) or miss a note(s)?

We might be looking for the same things but saying it in different ways.

I wouldn't say so. But it is what it is, I suppose.

It just happens that I am not as strong on her performance as you are.  It's not like there's a hard and fast "right or wrong"; it's not unusual for two people hear the same recording differently.

I'm happy to leave anyone to their own preferences but when a premise is forwarded as a basis for an argument........well......let's just say there's too much gray area here for my comfort...

 

[San Antone]

What other pianists do you feel bring more to the table in this piece (or any other piece) when they hit a wrong note (or two or ten) or miss a note(s)?

My standard is not hitting wrong notes.  I think I've explained what kind of performances I find the most compelling. 

These are the performances I've ranked so far. 

Gold
Martha Argerich
Nikolai Demidenko
Marc-André Hamelin
Krystian Zimerman

Silver
Boris Berezovsky
Vladimir Feltsman
George-Emmanuel Lazaridis
Paul Lewis
Maurizio Pollini

Bronze
Daniel Barenboim
Alfred Brendel
Katia Buniatishvili
Yundi Li
Louis Lortie

This is not a final list but is how it has shaped up.  I have changed my first impression for some after revisiting their recordings - Boris Berezovsky, e.g. - and will no doubt alter this list some more.  I have a rather long list of "honorable mentions" which I will try to pare down.  But given the huge number of recordings including a goodly amount of really good performances, I am making an effort to be very picky and narrow down the ones I think are truly special. And, I am not even including what I call "Recordings Emeritus" because I wish to focus on the current generation of performers.

[Karl Henning]

Polina Leschenko’s Liszt Sonata may be the most stunning—in its sheer clangtint, incandescent volatility, or revelatory animation, its interpretive compulsion—since the 1932 Horowitz recording changed the lives of pianists everywhere.

"Clangtint"?

[San Antone]

Yeah, I don't know exactly what he means either but her performance is something to behold; very audacious.  She will have a place on my list (not that it's important), I just trying to decide where hers fits.

[Florestan]

"Clangtint"?

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,19564.msg907057.html#msg907057 

[Karl Henning]

Well, I am undecided if we should take it as some sort of German import, or as a typo for clanging . . . .

[Florestan]

Well, I am undecided if we should take it as some sort of German import, or as a typo for clanging . . . .

That´s ok, but what do you make of incandescent volatility, revelatory animation, interpretive compulsion? 

[Karl Henning]

Well, it snowballs out of control . . . but at first, anyway, incandescent volatility seems [potentially] a positive 

[San Antone]

If you have access to a  streaming service, just listen.  It will all make sense.  Adrian Corleonis along with Peter Rabinowitch review (or at least have for the last 30 years) most of the Liszt recordings for Fanfare - I have come to trust Corleonis as being simpatico with my own taste.

[North Star]

Clangtint, hm. I suppose it means the tonal colour of the piano. (klang + tint)
"incandescent volatility, or revelatory animation, its interpretive compulsion" is gibberish, plain and simple, though.

[Florestan]

If you have access to a  streaming service, just listen.  It will all make sense.  Adrian Corleonis along with Peter Rabinowitch review (or at least have for the last 30 years) most of the Liszt recordings for Fanfare - I have come to trust Corleonis as being simpatico with my own taste.

Be honest! If you had never read Corleonis, would you have described the performance as incandescent volatility, or revelatory animation, its interpretive compulsion? I doubt it. 

[San Antone]

Be honest! If you had never read Corleonis, would you have described the performance as incandescent volatility, or revelatory animation, its interpretive compulsion? I doubt it. 

No, I never would have used those kinds of phrases, but I understand what he is getting at (and you will too if you would just listen to her).  This is how I did describe it:

And, in fact, it is quite perverse in some regards.  But for me that is a good thing.  The last thing we need is yet another technically perfect performance.  If a pianist is not going to take some risks and do something with the music that is individual, then really, why bother?

Leschenko's performance is audacious and will ruffle your feathers.  Highly enjoyable nonetheless.

[Florestan]

No, I never would have used those kinds of phrases, but I understand what he is getting at (and you will too if you would just listen to her).  This is how I did describe it:

I like your description much more. It doesn´t use the kind of smarter-than-thou, adjective-ridden, bombastic, interchangeable and ultimately meaningless verbiage which is the trademark of professional reviewers and of which you have supplied plenty in the last pages of this thread. 

[San Antone]

I like your description much more. It doesn´t use the kind of smarter-than-thou, adjective-ridden, bombastic, interchangeable and ultimately meaningless verbiage which is the trademark of professional reviewers and of which you have supplied plenty in the last pages of this thread. 

I understand how you feel.  But in the case of the Liszt B Minor sonata, which has been recorded over 200 times, reviewers I guess search for something new to say in order to characterize each recording.  The reason I often quote from reviews is to construct a critical context for the recording; I try to add my own comments as well, for what it's worth. 

What I find especially interesting is when there is a strong disagreement between two critics whose opinion I have come to respect.  That was the case with Ms. Leschenko's recording.  I am also interested when reviewers in the UK have different reaction than do those in the US to the same recordings.  I have not put my finger on exactly why that is, but it occurs fairly often.

[Florestan]

I understand how you feel.  But in the case of the Liszt B Minor sonata, which has been recorded over 200 times, reviewers I guess search for something new to say in order to characterize each recording.  The reason I often quote from reviews is to construct a critical context for the recording; I try to add my own comments as well, for what it's worth. 

What I find especially interesting is when there is a strong disagreement between two critics whose opinion I have come to respect.  That was the case with Ms. Leschenko's recording.  I am also interested when reviewers in the UK have different reaction than do those in the US to the same recordings.  I have not put my finger on exactly why that is, but it occurs fairly often.

Far from me to dismiss (professional) reviews as completely worthless, yet I fully subscribe to the dictum Writing about music is like dancing about architecture, whoever it was who said it first (sources vary). 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

My standard is not hitting wrong notes.  I think I've explained what kind of performances I find the most compelling.

Well, this sort of lengthy horse race invites discussion, I would think. That's half the fun. So don't blame me for inquisitively pestering!

Anyway, not to flog a dead horse, but I'd like to add a couple thoughts before I bug out:

This work is fundamentally about poetry first, virtuosity second. Here's what Liszt himself had to say about his own transformation as a composer: "The time has come for me to break the chrysalis of my virtuosity and give free reign to my thought".

Wagner on the sonata: "[it] is indescribably beautiful; great, worthy of love, deep and noble - sublime as you yourself are".

Liszt's biographer Peter Raabe on the sonata: "Hardly anywhere else in the whole of his works has he so uncompromisingly laid bare the sorrow of struggle as in this psalm...that speaks with the same intimacy of jubilation and lament, of defiance and humility".

Chicago critic Claudia Cassidy on Gilels's playing of the sonata: "...here is the Byronic darkness of [the sonata's] vaulting imagination, its spendthrift technique, its black shifts of mood, its utter conviction that the piano is...a singing instrument...".

Not to mention it's hardly coincidental that the sonata is dedicated to Schumann, one of the top handful of pianistic poets.

[San Antone]

Well, this sort of lengthy horse race invites discussion, I would think. That's half the fun. So don't blame me for inquisitively pestering!

No worries.  Your "pestering" (your word) helps me to clarify my own thinking about what are often illusive concepts.

This work is fundamentally about poetry first, virtuosity second.

Despite the evidence you bring with the quotes, I think this work, which was mid-period Liszt, not late, still is a virtuosic work.  The technical demands are Herculean, and while I agree with the idea that the work is much more than that, I do not think it accurate to completely deny that aspect.

Here's some of my thinking taken from my current draft introduction to a much longer "critical discography" I am doing on the work:

Liszt's Piano Sonata in B Minor is a monumental work for solo piano.  There are over 200 recordings of it, but only a fraction of that number present a performance that will have mastered both the technical demands and the musical problems. 

"The greater works of Liszt, which minor pianists turn into mere displays of virtuosity because their technique is inadequate for anything beyond that, often sounded strangely easy and simple when played by Busoni.  The glittering scales and arpeggios became what Liszt intended them to be - a dimly suggested background, while the themes in massive chords or singing melodies stood out clear." (Professor E. J. Dent from his book on Ferruccio Busoni quoted in Buechner , Searle, "The Early Works (1822-39)")

Only the best pianists can completely manage that kind of playing, but when they do, it transforms the Piano Sonata in B Minor into something vastly more than a recital showpiece.

Much has been made in the critical writing concerning Liszt, in general, and this sonata in particular, about the musical demands his music presents to performers.  There is the idea of its possessing a spiritual or philosophical aspect (Liszt was well known to have been an intellectual with a deep theological bent).  And it is expected that a pianist must solve the problem of conveying this aspect of the sonata in order to turn in a fully realized performance.

This is not to imply that the work is programmatic; Liszt gave no indication that the work is based on any text, or set of ideas or even characters, despite much speculation in this regard.  The oft cited "poetry" of the work is definitely there, in various sections, set off, usually before and after, by virtuosic passages of immense technical difficulty.  A general plan of attack for the work is for a pianist to convey these virtuosic sections with dramatic flair, abandon even, in order to contrast and present a foil for the more introspective or "poetic" sections.

The cliché about Liszt performance is that his music can be done in a Dionysian or an Apollian manner. While these are crude platitudes, there is something to this idea which is based in  Liszt's personality, and which comes out in his music.  I think a successful performance will be a combination of both, just as the technical demands go from virtuosic to poetic, so is the matching attitude to be deployed.