# What and Why Brendel



## Pestouille

I was listening to Brendel's farewell concerts and was seized by nostalgia, knowing he will no more play for us.
Why not tell Mr Brendel how much we appreciated his playing and his humour, by telling what we liked the most in his recordings (1 record no cycles) and why we appreciated him so much... 
Please no dispute on what is the best. Only what and whys...
I will start first:

I first met Mr Brendel as my father bought sonatas cycle of him, I was 6. His face on the record looked so serious that I was deeply impressed by it and I was fascinated by his playing. He made me love Beethoven...

I choose his Bach records which I think contains the best Brendel's inner world, his most sensitive side and his "Fingerspitzgefühl"....








Thanks Mr Brendel for all those memories


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

To me, Brendel will always be THE Schubert Impromptus:


----------



## Vaneyes

My four Brendel recs:

Haydn Piano Sonatas 20 & 49 (Philips)
Mozart PCs 20 & 24 w. Marriner (Philips)
Schubert Impromptus, Opp. 90, 142 (Philips, 1972/74)
Schoenberg PC w. Kubelik (DG)


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

My preeminent Brendel discs were the first I bought: the three last Schubert sonatas (Philips). But I'll listen to him playing anything, really, and always admire and be moved.


----------



## opus55

Everything I heard so far of Mr. Brendel has been good to great - Schubert impromptus & last sonatas and Mozart piano concertos.


----------



## Sid James

I like the clarity he brings to things, he's not my favourite but a force to be reckoned with for sure. & he's done a good deal of newer music. His recordings of the *Schoenberg *concerto are great, I have the earliest one on vinyl.

His* Liszt* is good as well. Not what I'd call an orthodox performance, but he brings plenty of the darkness and "Gothik" aspect of the two_ *La Lugubre Gondola* _pieces on the disc below. These were like premonitions of Wagner's death, who was Liszt's son in law. A pianist I was talking to here said he liked Brendel playing shorter pieces than longer ones. I guess my connection with these two works rather than the _Sonata in B minor_ on this disc kind of correlates with that (but it's a disc I am not faulting all round, just saying his concentration of clarity type style comes across more stronger in the shorter things on this cd) -


----------



## kv466

Vaneyes said:


> My four Brendel recs:
> 
> Haydn Piano Sonatas 20 & 49 (Philips)
> Mozart PCs 20 & 24 w. Marriner (Philips)
> Schubert Impromptus, Opp. 90, 142 (Philips, 1972/74)
> Schoenberg PC w. Kubelik (DG)


Van, you know me so well. Those, and the e-flat concerto, kv271.

Brendelfly was one of my first favorites exposing me to works like Beethoven's sonatas and pretty much everything Mozart as well as my first Schubert. As with every pianist I love there are performances I don't care for very much but when I think Brendel, it is always a fine piano playing that begins in my head.


----------



## Fugue Meister

He is one of the great's to me. IMO he's also rather under appreciated. Up there with Gould, Horowitz, and Giles.


----------



## PeterF

Just a few months ago I purchased a 4 CD set of Haydn Piano Sonatas by Brendel on the Decca label. They are marvelous, and may well be my favorite recordings of Haydn Piano Sonatas.


----------



## Bulldog

Brendel's in my top 3; maybe no. 1.

It's hard to know where to start, so I'll make it short. His Haydn sparkles and is the best I've ever heard. His Bach, Liszt, Mozart and Schubert recordings are wonderful as well.


----------



## Mandryka

I think his A to Z of the piano is fun and intelligent

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/31/alfred-brendel-pianists-a-z

A very memorable concert I went to was with Brendel, playing the Diabelli variations -- a late night concert in a church in the Edinburgh Festival about 10 years ago now, maybe more. I think he was good at the Diabelli Variations -- there are multiple recordings and what's nice, I think, is how they reached a summit with it at the end of his career. He must have felt this himself because he got a previously unreleased live Diabelli Variations published right at the end of his career, a performance from the Royal Festival Hall, from 2001. It's in a compilation called "Unpublished Live and Radio Performances 1968-2001" It's one of the most interesting recordings of these variations I've heard. Just the right balance of energy and cerebral-ness.

He was pretty interesting in the Hammerklavier too -- there's a live one from Vienna on Philips which I thought was exceptional.

One amusing thing -- I'm NOT recommending the performance -- is the DVD of Winterreise with Fischer Dieskau. FiDi was past his prime, fat cheeks with greasy slick hair, he does his usual thing. But what's most amusing is to see the relation between the pianist and the singer in the rehearsal footage which comes in the DVD -- the way FiDi dominates and Brendel -- who was young at that time -- allows it to happen. Fi Di says "jump" and Brendel says "how high" Maybe this is normal in song, though something tells me that the relationship would have been different in a rehearsal with Richter.


----------



## Janspe

When I think of Brendel's discography, his Liszt recordings come to mind first. He didn't just play the standard warhorses like the sonata and the concertos, but championed a lot of the lesser known pieces as well. As an ardent Liszt lover, I've got to respect Brendel for his efforts!


----------



## hpowders

Brendel never moved me. I've never heard a Brendel performance that I hadn't heard done better by somebody else.

For me Brendel has been "over-rated".


----------



## LarryShone

I have some of his Beethoven pf.sonatas and they are superb. I had hoped to get them all by Brendel but it was not to be...yet...


----------



## Varick

hpowders said:


> Brendel never moved me. I've never heard a Brendel performance that I hadn't heard done better by somebody else.
> 
> For me Brendel has been "over-rated".


I'm with you. I have his complete Beethoven Sonatas. I also have two Mozart Piano Concertos and a few Liszt pieces (Both of which I need to listen again). I will say that his Beethoven Sonatas are important as a "study" of those works, because his versions are very cerebral and analytical but there are far better versions of LvB Sonatas out there that capture the "spirit" of those works.

His playing has never "moved" me in any emotional way. I too have often scratched my head about his appeal. But hey, that's what makes a ball game.

V


----------



## julianoq

I love Brendel on Beethoven sonatas, specially the late (30-32) ones one his second cycle.


----------



## hpowders

Why Brendel indeed? His playing never moved or stimulated me. Don't see what the fuss is about. Others like Rudolf Serkin were so much better-more probing, exciting and stimulating.


----------



## Itullian

This coming in the mail.
Love Brendel.


----------



## hpowders

I ask again; Why Brendel? What has he recorded that so many other pianists haven't done better?

Okay I admit, he's better than Lang Lang.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

I think you'll find Brendel a very fine interpreter of Schubert, Itullian, or at least I hope you do. I swither between him and Wilhelm Kempff, but both offer profound readings. I got Kempff on CD about 3 years ago, Brendel I have on elderly LPs which means I tend to listen to Kempff more now.


----------



## Itullian

TurnaboutVox said:


> I think you'll find Brendel a very fine interpreter of Schubert, Itullian, or at least I hope you do. I swither between him and Wilhelm Kempff, but both offer profound readings. I got Kempff on CD about 3 years ago, Brendel I have on elderly LPs which means I tend to listen to Kempff more now.


I have the last 3 sonatas on an old Philips two fer and figured i'd pick up the set.
I don't think his analog set has been out for many years.
I have the Kempff too.

I always find Brendel's playing an interesting listen.


----------



## Itullian

hpowders said:


> I ask again; Why Brendel? What has he recorded that so many other pianists haven't done better?
> 
> Okay I admit, he's better than Lang Lang.


You listen to who you like and me to what I like, right?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

hpowders said:


> I ask again; Why Brendel? What has he recorded that so many other pianists haven't done better?
> 
> Okay I admit, he's better than Lang Lang.


All snark aside, that is very largely my own aesthetic encounter with the majority of Brendel's _oeuvre._


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I ask again; Why Brendel? What has he recorded that so many other pianists haven't done better?

Hmmm?  Isn't this the same guy who wrote on another thread:

"My credo is and always has been, listen to what you like, performed by whomever you like..."


----------



## Vaneyes

OPie hasn't posted at TC for 2 1/2 years.


----------



## Ukko

Vaneyes said:


> OPie hasn't posted at TC for 2 1/2 years.


Apparently his question has withstood the test of time. 

BTW my take on Brendels's recordings is that his interpretations are clean, credible, and entirely unmemorable. Damned if I know whether that is a plus or a minus.


----------



## hpowders

Marschallin Blair said:


> All snark aside, that is very largely my own aesthetic encounter with the majority of Brendel's _oeuvre._


Not sure-does this mean you like Brendel or don't care for him. After growing up listening to Schnabel, Fischer, Rubinstein, Richter and R Serkin, I would not include Brendel among those great pianists. Simply an honest opinion. I find him adequate; nothing more.

I purchased one of his Mozart concerto performances-#23. Nothing special. Rubinstein did it better.

So I continue to ask, Why Brendel?

That's part of the thread topic by the way.


----------



## Varick

julianoq said:


> I love Brendel on Beethoven sonatas, specially the late (30-32) ones one his second cycle.


I will agree with you that he did seem to put a little more spirit into the later LvB Sonatas. I'd start with #25 to 32. But I still think there are a dozen or so pianists out there who did it better.



Ukko said:


> Apparently his question has withstood the test of time.
> 
> BTW my take on Brendels's recordings is that his interpretations are clean, credible, and *entirely unmemorable*. Damned if I know whether that is a plus or a minus.


THIS^^^^!!!!



StlukesguildOhio said:


> I ask again; Why Brendel? What has he recorded that so many other pianists haven't done better?
> 
> Hmmm?  Isn't this the same guy who wrote on another thread:
> 
> "My credo is and always has been, listen to what you like, performed by whomever you like..."


I think he's trying to hear someone's explanation of what it is about Brendel that moves them. A description of Brendel's... as the French say... "I don't know what."

I don't believe HPowders is saying that no should listen to the guy.

V


----------



## hpowders

Varick said:


> I will agree with you that he did seem to put a little more spirit into the later LvB Sonatas. I'd start with #25 to 32. But I still think there are a dozen or so pianists out there who did it better.
> 
> THIS^^^^!!!!
> 
> I think he's trying to hear someone's explanation of what it is about Brendel that moves them. A description of Brendel's... as the French say... "I don't know what."
> 
> *I don't believe HPowders is saying that no should listen to the guy.*
> 
> V


Exactly. Thank you. My motto on TC has ALWAYS been, stated many times "like what you like".
I simply ask "Why Brendel?" because _in my opinion,_ others such as A. Fischer, R. Serkin, Schnabel, Moravec, Haskil and even Rubinstein have provided more musicianly performances in Brendel's repertoire.

Just asking what it is that attracts them to his playing.

You like Brendel? Fine. I'm not telling you not to love him or listen to his performances. I just want to know what attracts his admirers to his playing. Why are some of you getting so defensive?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

You like Brendel? Fine. Please answer the question.

Well it seems to me that no one who likes Brendel owes you an explanation as to why any more than you owe them an explanation of why you prefer Schnabel or Serkin. Personally there are few pianists that I truly follow to any great extent. Gould is the immediate exception that I can think of. I tend to seek out a number of the finest performances of a given repertoire: Perahia, Curzon, Bilson, Uchida, recently Ronald Brautigam... and yes, Brendel for Mozart. Wilhelm Kempff, Emil Gilels, Friedrich Gulda for Beethoven's sonatas, and Kempff, Leon Fleisher, Serkin, Gilels, and Murray Perahia for the piano concertos. Rubinstein and a crapload of others for Chopin. Walter Gieseking, Jean-Efflam Bavouzet, Pascal Roge and Alexis Weissenberg for Debussy.

Beyond the Mozart works, I quite like Brendel's Schubert... especially for the _Impromptus_. I quite appreciate Brendel's argument that he believes the primary job of the pianist is to respect the composer's wishes without showing off himself, or adding his own spin on the music: "I am responsible to the composer, and particularly to the piece". This, in spite of the fact that I also appreciate the performances of those more "romantic" performers like Sviatoslav Richter. For me, Richter is too "romantic" for Bach... whereas Glen Gould... whose manner of performance is no less unique... seems perfectly suited to Bach IMO.


----------



## tdc

I like Brendel on some things. He often has a way of bringing me into experiencing and enjoying music by certain composers I'm normally not that interested in, this has happened with Haydn and Liszt pieces I've listened to performed by him. 

That said I feel his performances on the late Mozart Pcs I've heard were adequate, but not overly impressive.


----------



## KenOC

I'm of an age when Brendel was a major game in town, especially his Beethoven and Schubert. So naturally I have a soft spot for him. Since those years I've discovered others who I prefer in many cases, but Brendel's playing remains first-class -- as it always has been.


----------



## Varick

StlukesguildOhio said:


> You like Brendel? Fine. Please answer the question.
> 
> Well it seems to me that no one who likes Brendel owes you an explanation as to why any more than you owe them an explanation of why you prefer Schnabel or Serkin. Personally there are few pianists that I truly follow to any great extent. Gould is the immediate exception that I can think of. I tend to seek out a number of the finest performances of a given repertoire: Perahia, Curzon, Bilson, Uchida, recently Ronald Brautigam... and yes, Brendel for Mozart. Wilhelm Kempff, Emil Gilels, Friedrich Gulda for Beethoven's sonatas, and Kempff, Leon Fleisher, Serkin, Gilels, and Murray Perahia for the piano concertos. Rubinstein and a crapload of others for Chopin. Walter Gieseking, Jean-Efflam Bavouzet, Pascal Roge and Alexis Weissenberg for Debussy.
> 
> Beyond the Mozart works, I quite like Brendel's Schubert... especially for the _Impromptus_. I quite appreciate Brendel's argument that he believes the primary job of the pianist is to respect the composer's wishes without showing off himself, or adding his own spin on the music: "I am responsible to the composer, and particularly to the piece". This, in spite of the fact that I also appreciate the performances of those more "romantic" performers like Sviatoslav Richter. For me, Richter is too "romantic" for Bach... whereas Glen Gould... whose manner of performance is no less unique... seems perfectly suited to Bach IMO.


I for one think you answered Hpowder's question in spades. Well done! Of course no one owes anyone else an explanation of why they like X over Y, but I do think it makes for GREAT dialogue as long as the parties involved respect the difference of opinion (a mentality that seems to be on the endangered species list lately).

I can't necessarily say I agree with Brendel's philosophy 100%, however It seems that he practices what he preaches to a Tee. And therein lies the rub. I can't believe of a composer not wanting a performer to bring life, passion and color to a piece of theirs. This is why I find music to be the greatest of all mediums of art. The artist (performer) MUST stay true the structure and precepts of the composition, but internalizing that piece and making it their own is what can add greatness to a performance... or kill it in some instances.

One can make a good dish by using all the ingredients of a recipe in all the right quantities and all the proper timing of cooking, but a great chef will add their own twist on that dish and make it magnificent. It will still be the same dish, but something magical happened along the way.

IMO, Brendel follows the recipe to the letter with almost robotic precision. That's fine, but then you get a performance perfectly described by Ukko time and time again.

V


----------



## hpowders

Varick said:


> I for one think you answered Hpowder's question in spades. Well done! Of course *no one owes anyone else an explanation of why they like X over Y*, but I do think it makes for GREAT dialogue as long as the parties involved respect the difference of opinion (a mentality that seems to be on the endangered species list lately).
> 
> I can't necessarily say I agree with Brendel's philosophy 100%, however It seems that he practices what he preaches to a Tee. And therein lies the rub. I can't believe of a composer not wanting a performer to bring life, passion and color to a piece of theirs. This is why I find music to be the greatest of all mediums of art. The artist (performer) MUST stay true the structure and precepts of the composition, but internalizing that piece and making it their own is what can add greatness to a performance... or kill it in some instances.
> 
> One can make a good dish by using all the ingredients of a recipe in all the right quantities and all the proper timing of cooking, but a great chef will add their own twist on that dish and make it magnificent. It will still be the same dish, but something magical happened along the way.
> 
> IMO, Brendel follows the recipe to the letter with almost robotic precision. That's fine, but then you get a performance perfectly described by Ukko time and time again.
> 
> V


Well if the thread title is partially "Why Brendel?", and I reiterate, "WHY BRENDEL?" and you claim "nobody owes anyone an explanation of why.." then why are we here?

The best answer I get to "Why Brendel?" is: why am I trying to de-convert folks away from liking Brendel?
Huh???????


----------



## PetrB

StlukesguildOhio said:


> To me, Brendel will always be THE Schubert Impromptus:


Like spontaneous and unlabored breathing or natural speech, so perfectly natural and spontaneous sounding they are. Really phenomenal playing and stunningly fine musicianship.

I could say the same about his Mozart Concerti recordings -- like there is no one there, or he is so on top of them that one does not hear the interference of a performer as medium, but instead, you just hear 'Mozart.'

But he brought that quality to just about anything he touched.

Mr. Natural


----------



## hpowders

PetrB said:


> Like spontaneous and unlabored breathing or natural speech, so perfectly natural and spontaneous sounding they are. Really phenomenal playing and stunningly fine musicianship.
> 
> I could say the same about his Mozart Concerti recordings -- like there is no one there, or he is so on top of them that one does not hear the interference of a performer as medium, but instead, you just hear 'Mozart.'
> 
> But he brought that quality to just about anything he touched.
> 
> Mr. Natural


You and I are on other planets! :lol:


----------



## Ukko

PetrB said:


> Like spontaneous and unlabored breathing or natural speech, so perfectly natural and spontaneous sounding they are. Really phenomenal playing and stunningly fine musicianship.
> 
> I could say the same about his Mozart Concerti recordings -- like there is no one there, or he is so on top of them that one does not hear the interference of a performer as medium, but instead, you just hear 'Mozart.'
> 
> But he brought that quality to just about anything he touched.
> 
> Mr. Natural


Your description much mean something different to you than it does to me. He just played the notes?


----------



## Itullian

Not sure exactly why I like him. Touch, clarity, simplicity maybe.
There seems to be a humbleness or selflessness to him that I like.

My favorites Kempff and Arrau are different too.


----------



## PetrB

Ukko said:


> Your description much mean something different to you than it does to me. He just played the notes?


When I say about a performer I admire, that 'they just play,' it means there is absolutely nothing between them, the instrument, and us -- absolutely nothing but the clear voice of the music --so subsumed and completely on top of their technique that the performer seems to virtually almost not be there.

This is the highest compliment I can think to give a performer, that they became the piece so much that it is all I heard, with no other thoughts or interfering tics, energies or asserted personality.

Some cannot imagine this, thinking it is erasing oneself completely: it is instead such a willful and complete immersion in order to best serve the composer and the piece that we can not tell where the composer ends and the performer begins.

Brendel plays Schubert, and all I hear is Schubert, and that heard _ideally_, like the ebb and flow of natural breathing, free and easy spontaneous thought and speech. Can we say that about many other pianists?


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> You and I are on other planets! :lol:


Now the only question is which point of reference do we decide upon, 
i.e. making of which one of us "the alien." :lol: :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders

PetrB said:


> Now the only question is which point of reference do we decide upon,
> i.e. making of which one of us "the alien." :lol: :tiphat:


Yes, that is important-who wears home white jerseys and who wears visiting gray.


----------



## hpowders

PetrB said:


> Like spontaneous and unlabored breathing or natural speech, so perfectly natural and spontaneous sounding they are. Really phenomenal playing and stunningly fine musicianship.
> 
> I could say the same about his Mozart Concerti recordings -- like there is no one there, or he is so on top of them that one does not hear the interference of a performer as medium, but instead, you just hear 'Mozart.'
> 
> But he brought that quality to just about anything he touched.
> 
> Mr. Natural


Well, thanks for answering the question. He does none of that for me, but someone must be buying his CD's!


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> Well, thanks for answering the question. He does none of that for me, but someone must be buying his CD's!


I don't care for added ingredients in what I think is already a perfect dish. Really, I think the 'personality thing' is far over-rated, as much as 'self-expression' is today hugely over-rated. There is still galaxies of space left for 'interpretation' without imposing the performer's more idiosyncratic bits and pieces on the music.

Some people, and it is my perspective, don't get it, or much prefer (or even need) their music with that extra gloss or theatricality added by some performers, exactly the thing if done to a certain degree that I notice and resent. If a performer raises the question in my mind, "Is this about Schubert, or you?" I'm generally quickly outta there.

Once in a while, those more unique takes can give a very lively and intelligent other perspective on a piece, but my sensibility has it that many of the more 'personality touched' performances sound more like a distortion than a decent presentation. A lot of this dynamic ends up moot, and is more a matter if, for the listener, the performer can wholly convince the listener at least for the duration, "this is the way this piece goes."

I suppose this should be qualified: I'm perhaps too trained in 'proper period style' to have much truck with anything too bent outside of that. I consider the greatest of performers having a role identical to that of actors, i.e. play the part, invest yourself in it, but don't warp the take in order to display the self. I do not 'go to' Richter for Chopin, musician supreme that Richter was. With Bach, as much as musicology tells us, there_ is no real telling_, ergo, of two highly different and supposedly 'eccentric' renderings, Gould convinces me, and Simone Dinnerstein just does not convince me at all. If it comes to the more middle road, again quite 'excellent' in its own way, still Andras Schiff is for me far too lukewarm and that much more "too safe," neither 'unique' or vital sounding (pardon, but 'no balls')


----------



## tdc

PetrB said:


> I don't care for added ingredients in what I think is already a perfect dish. Really, I think the 'personality thing' is far over-rated, as much as 'self-expression' is today hugely over-rated. There is still galaxies of space left for 'interpretation' without imposing the performer's more idiosyncratic bits and pieces on the music.
> 
> Some people, and it is my perspective, don't get it, or much prefer (or even need) their music with that extra gloss or theatricality added by some performers, exactly the thing if done to a certain degree that I notice and resent. If a performer raises the question in my mind, "Is this about Schubert, or you?" I'm generally quickly outta there.
> 
> Once in a while, those more unique takes can give a very lively and intelligent other perspective on a piece, but my sensibility has it that many of the more 'personality touched' performances sound more like a distortion than a decent presentation. A lot of this dynamic ends up moot, and is more a matter if, for the listener, the performer can wholly convince the listener at least for the duration, "this is the way this piece goes."
> 
> I suppose this should be qualified: I'm perhaps too trained in 'proper period style' to have much truck with anything too bent outside of that. I consider the greatest of performers having a role identical to that of actors, i.e. play the part, invest yourself in it, but don't warp the take in order to display the self. I do not 'go to' Richter for Chopin, musician supreme that Richter was. With Bach, as much as musicology tells us, there_ is no real telling_, ergo, of two highly different and supposedly 'eccentric' renderings, Gould convinces me, Andras Schiff is far too lukewarm and that much more "too safe," neither 'unique' or vital sounding (pardon, but 'no balls'), and Simone Dinnerstein just does not convince me at all.


This post is somewhat contradictory and basically says - you don't like the performer to add too much of themselves, unless you just happen to like it. I believe I remember you stating in the past your favorite interpreter of Ravel is Samson Francois also a performer not exactly known for playing 'just the notes'.

All that said I think Brendel is a great pianist, so no disagreement from me there.


----------



## PetrB

tdc said:


> This post is somewhat contradictory and basically says - you don't like the performer to add too much of themselves, unless you just happen to like it. I believe I remember you stating in the past your favorite interpreter of Ravel is Samson Francois also a performer not exactly known for playing 'just the notes'.
> 
> All that said I think Brendel is a great pianist, so no disagreement from me there.


In some repertoire, Samson François could be highly idiosyncratic to the point where it becomes annoying. But to me, his Ravel is quite devoid of the eccentricities which mar, imo, his Chopin, for example, so the Ravel is quite on the money. Exactly because I think his Ravel is not idiosyncratic, but on the money, that I more than like his Ravel.

Those idiosyncratic performances which do convince me for the duration of a piece, I'm fine with, but my experience has been they are convincing only for the duration, i.e. fine live, and once, both interesting and memorable, even, but in a recording not something I would want to play and play again.

A lot of listeners really require 'the show' -- including within a recorded performance -- to grab them enough to want to go back to the piece. This is a sort of given and not a judgment. But it is very different from what many might consider 'underplayed,' where it is more 'just the music' without any added luster or gloss of extra-musical charisma. The (supposedly / relatively) "underplayed" is perhaps my greater inclination, to let the music speak for itself. I find it leaves more room for the listener to get in that way.)


----------



## tdc

PetrB said:


> In some repertoire, Samson François could be highly idiosyncratic to the point where it becomes annoying. But to me, his Ravel is quite devoid of the eccentricities which mar, imo, his Chopin, for example, so the Ravel is quite on the money. Exactly because I think his Ravel is not idiosyncratic, but on the money, that I more than like his Ravel.
> 
> Those idiosyncratic performances which do convince me for the duration of a piece, I'm fine with, but my experience has been they are convincing only for the duration, i.e. fine live, and once, both interesting and memorable, even, but in a recording not something I would want to play and play again.
> 
> A lot of listeners really require 'the show' -- including within a recorded performance -- to grab them enough to want to go back to the piece. This is a sort of given and not a judgment. But it is very different from what many might consider 'underplayed,' where it is more 'just the music' without any added luster or gloss of extra-musical charisma. The (supposedly / relatively) "underplayed" is perhaps my greater inclination, to let the music speak for itself. I find it leaves more room for the listener to get in that way.)


Well stated, and I do agree with your over-all philosophy. Our tastes deviate in terms of Gould and Schiff, but the Francois Ravel I have actually come to appreciate more over time.


----------



## Varick

PetrB said:


> I don't care for added ingredients in what I think is already a perfect dish. Really, I think the 'personality thing' is far over-rated, as much as 'self-expression' is today hugely over-rated. There is still galaxies of space left for 'interpretation' without imposing the performer's more idiosyncratic bits and pieces on the music.
> 
> Some people, and it is my perspective, don't get it, or much prefer (or even need) their music with that extra gloss or theatricality added by some performers, exactly the thing if done to a certain degree that I notice and resent. If a performer raises the question in my mind, "Is this about Schubert, or you?" I'm generally quickly outta there.
> 
> Once in a while, those more unique takes can give a very lively and intelligent other perspective on a piece, but my sensibility has it that many of the more 'personality touched' performances sound more like a distortion than a decent presentation. A lot of this dynamic ends up moot, and is more a matter if, for the listener, the performer can wholly convince the listener at least for the duration, "this is the way this piece goes."
> 
> I suppose this should be qualified: I'm perhaps too trained in 'proper period style' to have much truck with anything too bent outside of that. I consider the greatest of performers having a role identical to that of actors, i.e. play the part, invest yourself in it, but don't warp the take in order to display the self. I do not 'go to' Richter for Chopin, musician supreme that Richter was. With Bach, as much as musicology tells us, there_ is no real telling_, ergo, of two highly different and supposedly 'eccentric' renderings, Gould convinces me, and Simone Dinnerstein just does not convince me at all. If it comes to the more middle road, again quite 'excellent' in its own way, still Andras Schiff is for me far too lukewarm and that much more "too safe," neither 'unique' or vital sounding (pardon, but 'no balls')


So I take it your not a big Karajan fan, or even for that matter a big Lenny fan?

V


----------



## hpowders

I just had a thought. Imagine if his parents had a sense of humor and named the king of the Vox box, Mendel Brendel. :lol:


----------



## Heliogabo

Thanks to Brendel I've rediscovered the music of some composers, like Haydn and Liszt. His performances gave me another view of their music. I find his performances in general fresh but strong, serious but spontaneous, and always trying to catch the spirit of the composer's intention. Definitely one of my favorites and most beloved pianists.


----------



## Lord Lance

Of all things I know Brendel for, his _flawless _execution of Beethoven's Piano Sonata's First Movement is forever engraved in my mind. He couldn't redo the magic in his later recording.

Speaking of Brendel:
What's his best recording of Beethoven's five Piano Concerti? He has three cycles (four?).


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

I think Brendel has a very fluid, yet 'sparkling' and resonant way of hitting single notes, making them shine and stand out. He contrasts this almost 'liquid'-style sound with a more staccato sound when needed, and this creates an interesting balance that is always fun to come back to. This is my impression of his playing based on the Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven I've heard him perform.


----------



## Haydn man

I would also come to Brendel's defence. My introduction to his playing came from listening to his Schubert Impromptus and Sonatas. I love the way he plays these works and simply lets the music happen


----------



## Wigmar

hpowders said:


> I ask again; Why Brendel? What has he recorded that so many other pianists haven't done better?
> 
> Okay I admit, he's better than Lang Lang.


Brendel is indeed one of my favourite interpreters, with splendid Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven & Schubert interpretations. His Brahms is as well indeed outstanding. 
I have listened to many of his recordings during fourty years, and I still do.


----------



## mollig

Brendel to me is a bit like Schiff: everything done in good taste and throught through and generally perfectly executed. But a lack of fire and individuality. The kind of performances that are always solid but rarely memorable.


----------



## Waehnen

Brendel is by far my favourite pianist, in addition to his wonderful sense of balance, style and perfect articulation, mostly because of his wonderful ability to create tone colours on the keyboard. I tend to forget it is the piano as the music surpasses the instrument. His tone is never too forceful.


----------



## joen_cph

mollig said:


> Brendel to me is a bit like Schiff: everything done in good taste and throught through and generally perfectly executed. But a lack of fire and individuality. The kind of performances that are always solid but rarely memorable.


Concerning Schiff, there's been a remarkable development in heightened expressivity, from his Decca to his ECM-recordings, IMO.
Examples: Bach's_ Partitas_, Decca vs. ECM, and Beethoven _cello works_/Perenyi/ECM.

As regards Brendel, his output has been very varied. I get your point, and partly agree, but for example his early, concertante *Liszt* on Vox tends to be quite expressive, whereas his Beethoven on that label tends to be rather classicist in style. I've come to appreciate his *Schubert* more, even after a lot of comparing with others; his Philips _Moments Musicaux_ are classics, for instance, and so are his magical Philips Liszt _La Lugubre Gondola I-II_. Among his many *Beethoven* concerto recordings, I've only really liked his_ 3rd _with Haitink, which has a certain architectural sense of cohesion, plus a percussive broadness and sense of line in the 1st movement.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I have not really heard enough of either, although somewhat representative samples. Schiff often lacks fire but I think he does have individuality and originality, even in the earlier Decca recordings, certainly with ECM (one still does not need to like what he does). He seems often less than "solid" to me.
When I got into classical music in the late 1980s, Brendel was basically hailed as THE authority for Mozart and Schubert, and also Beethoven. Sure, this was a bit of marketing, but held to this standard I find his recordings a mixed bag. Although at his best, he is far better than merely solid.


----------

