# What Makes This Musician's Performances of That Composer Special (e.g., Gould/Bach)?



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

This is intended as a series regarding why certain musicians or ensembles are so closely identified and associated with some composers, such as Gould's Bach, Rubenstein's Chopin, Gieseking's Debussy, Beecham's Delius, The Busch Quartet's Beethoven, etc. Anyone can suggest or nominate a musician/composer for the purpose of having others give their opinions, or one can just come out of the gate and give an opinion on a particular artist/composer combo., and others can chime in and react. While many opinions have surely been given on these matters, I felt it might be helpful and convenient to have one thread where both novices and seasoned veterans of classical music can come and discover or explain why Bohm's Mozart or Mackerras' Janacek is often highly praised, etc. 

I'll start off with the first name I mentioned: Glenn Gould's Bach. Gould's reputation and legacy is tethered to Bach. Why?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> I'll start off with the first name I mentioned: Glenn Gould's Bach. Gould's reputation and legacy is tethered to Bach. Why?


 Because that's mostly what Gould played. He appeared on the scene with his 1955 GV recording which I think was beautifully articulated -- the clarity of Gould's playing is the one thing I like -- and sometimes played at look-at-me breakneck tempos. It's unfair in a way that superior recordings by Rosalyn Tureck were ignored, in my opinion.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

SearsPoncho said:


> I'll start off with the first name I mentioned: Glenn Gould's Bach. Gould's reputation and legacy is tethered to Bach. Why?


Three things - Gould's eccentric personality, the clarity mentioned above, and giving equal weight to each musical line.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SearsPoncho said:


> I'll start off with the first name I mentioned: Glenn Gould's Bach. Gould's reputation and legacy is tethered to Bach. Why?


Well the main reason is marketing I think. If I type Goldberg Variations into amazon, spotify and youtube he comes up at or very near the top of the list of hits, and that's presumably paid for by his estate.

His reputation is not "tethered" to Bach, by the way, it is tethered to The Goldberg Variations.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Well the main reason is marketing I think. If I type Goldberg Variations into amazon, spotify and youtube he comes up at or very near the top of the list of hits, and that's presumably paid for by his estate.
> 
> His reputation is not "tethered" to Bach, by the way, it is tethered to The Goldberg Variations.


Gould was famous long before Amazon, Spotify or YouTube. Come on.


----------



## FastkeinBrahms (Jan 9, 2021)

His second rendering of the Goldberg Variations remains one of my favourites, not least because this was only the second or third CD I bought, at the then atrocious price of 25 dollars or thereabout. At first I was put out by his famous humming. Nowadays, it almost puts me in a trance with its mesmerizing inward looking intensity and extremely individualistic tempos. His playing is at the same time crystal clear in a detached way maybe particularly suited to baroque music, and simultaneously almost post-modern in is total disregard for convention. 
It is hard to think of similarly compelling pairings of performing musicians and composers. Only oder ones come to mind.
Maybe Fischer-Dieskau and the Winterreise?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

SearsPoncho said:


> I'll start off with the first name I mentioned: Glenn Gould's Bach. Gould's reputation and legacy is tethered to Bach. Why?


My perception is that people are mainly astonished by his great technical prowess on the keys. Bach was the composer who he recorded the most of. I think he would be just as tied to any other composer that he chose to specialize in if he played it in the same fashion. But I dislike Gould's Bach with a strong passion (his Brahms, a different story), so perhaps I'm being unfair.

My discussion question: Why are Toscanini's Beethoven symphony recordings still so revered by many when there have been so many recordings in modern-sound since then? Did Toscanini achieve singular things with his orchestra that haven't been done since?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Sadly, in another dozen or so posts this thread will turn toxic like most other Gould threads. Not by me I would add. I’m a huge fan of Gould but the anti-Gould league will be out and about in no time at all. :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

There's something very "nostalgic" about this:




_"Heil, mein Führertwängler!"_


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

Barbebleu said:


> Sadly, in another dozen or so posts this thread will turn toxic like most other Gould threads. Not by me I would add. I'm a huge fan of Gould but the anti-Gould league will be out and about in no time at all. :lol:


This was not intended as a Gould thread. Gould was just the first name I came up with. ACB asked an interesting question on Toscanini and Beethoven.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> giving equal weight to each musical line.


Is that even possible on the modern piano though?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ...
> My discussion question: Why are Toscanini's Beethoven symphony recordings still so revered by many when there have been so many recordings in modern-sound since then? Did Toscanini achieve singular things with his orchestra that haven't been done since?


Honestly I think it's mostly because it's, you know, Toscanini.


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

The fantastic myths there are about Gould. When he came on the scene The Goldberg Variations were practically unknown and CBS didn't want him to record them as a debut but he insisted. It became a hit because of the brilliant playing which communicated with people that Bach playing could be interesting and enjoyable.


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> My perception is that people are mainly astonished by his great technical prowess on the keys. Bach was the composer who he recorded the most of. I think he would be just as tied to any other composer that he chose to specialize in if he played it in the same fashion. But I dislike Gould's Bach with a strong passion (his Brahms, a different story), so perhaps I'm being unfair.
> 
> My discussion question: Why are Toscanini's Beethoven symphony recordings still so revered by many when there have been so many recordings in modern-sound since then? Did Toscanini achieve singular things with his orchestra that haven't been done since?


I'm not sure Toscanini is as associated with Beethoven as some of the other musician/composer relationships I mentioned in my first post, however, it is a very good question because I'm a great admirer of Toscanini's Beethoven. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the audio quality of those recordings can be dry and brutal. Why do I like Toscanini's Beethoven and wish the audio quality of those recordings was better? What makes Toscanini's Beethoven special? The crystal clear clarity of "his" phrasing, the precision of the ensembles he conducted (most famously the NBC Orchestra), the lack of affectation which one hears in some other conductors' Beethoven, and the clarity of form and musical architecture in his Beethoven is first-class. There is never a sense of confusion as to what is going on with the music or where it's heading, which can be the case with some other very famous conductors' Beethoven. His Beethoven set, particularly the Eroica and 9th, would be my first choice if the audio quality were just a little better. That's just my two cents, but I was also wondering if there are any Toscanini recordings with good audio quality.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> Gould was famous long before Amazon, Spotify or YouTube. Come on.


And in those days he would have had a PR budget too. Same for, for example, Gieseking's EMI Debussy, the Rubinstein Chopin, the Schnabel Beethoven etc etc etc.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> And in those days he would have had a PR budget too. Same for, for example, Gieseking's EMI Debussy, the Rubinstein Chopin, the Schnabel Beethoven etc etc etc.


Well it would be the recording company, but the PR budget can only do so much. Gould is popular on Amazon, Spotify and YT -- and long before that popular in record stores --_because a lot of people like his playing._


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> My discussion question: Why are Toscanini's Beethoven symphony recordings still so revered by many when there have been so many recordings in modern-sound since then? Did Toscanini achieve singular things with his orchestra that haven't been done since?


Toscanini had a huge marketing machine, that is why he was revered. Simple.

As to why he _is_ revered, he isn't. Except by a few seniors who remember the time when he was revered.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> Well it would be the recording company, but the PR budget can only do so much. Gould is popular on Amazon, Spotify and YT - . . . -_because a lot of people like his playing._


I was hoping someone would say this because I genuinely don't know the answer and maybe someone here who's involved in marketing can supply it. How do you get to the top of the page on Amazon, Spotify and YT? I was assuming it's at least partly paid for, but I could be wrong.

As to record stores, again, I'm not sure how Gould found himself on the racks. Presumably some rep came and put him there - and that, combined with PR lunches for the journalists etc, meant that he started to be talked about.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Toscanini had a huge marketing machine, that is why he was revered. Simple.
> 
> As to why he _is_ revered, he isn't. Except by a few seniors who remember the time when he was revered.


Not everything comes down to marketing. Toscanini was a great, legendary conductor which in itself is marketing. You're faced with a chicken and egg problem, as with Gould. I don't see any evidence that Columbia plastered the country with ads and billboards about Gould's 1955 recording. It was new territory for a lot of people and played in a way they hadn't heard. It marketed itself.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> Not everything comes down to marketing. Toscanini was a great, legendary conductor which in itself is marketing. You're faced with a chicken and egg problem, as with Gould. I don't see any evidence that Columbia plastered the country with ads and billboards about Gould's 1955 recording. It was new territory for a lot of people and played in a way they hadn't heard. It marketed itself.


Not ads and billboards. But they certainly wined and dined journalists and they certainly stocked the LP racks.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> How do you get to the top of the page on Amazon, Spotify and YT? I was assuming it's at least partly paid for, but I could be wrong.


Just spitballing, but it could reflect what people want to hear.


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

FastkeinBrahms said:


> His second rendering of the Goldberg Variations remains one of my favourites, not least because this was only the second or third CD I bought, at the then atrocious price of 25 dollars or thereabout. At first I was put out by his famous humming. Nowadays, it almost puts me in a trance with its mesmerizing inward looking intensity and extremely individualistic tempos. His playing is at the same time crystal clear in a detached way maybe particularly suited to baroque music, and simultaneously almost post-modern in is total disregard for convention.
> It is hard to think of similarly compelling pairings of performing musicians and composers. Only oder ones come to mind.
> Maybe Fischer-Dieskau and the Winterreise?


I hope someone can provide some insight on this good suggestion. Fischer-Dieskau and Schubert's Winterreise. I rarely listen to lieder or vocals in classical music, however, Fischer-Dieskau's Winterreise is one of the lieder recordings I do listen to. I bought it because of the reputation of DFD's Schubert. Don't know much about singing, so maybe someone else can enlighten us regarding what makes DFD's Winterreise so special.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SearsPoncho said:


> I hope someone can provide some insight on this good suggestion. Fischer-Dieskau and Schubert's Winterreise. I rarely listen to lieder or vocals in classical music, however, Fischer-Dieskau's Winterreise is one of the lieder recordings I do listen to. I bought it because of the reputation of DFD's Schubert. Don't know much about singing, so maybe someone else can enlighten us regarding what makes DFD's Winterreise so special.


It is distinctive because it is extremely nuanced, the colour of every vowel and every consonant has been planned and implemented with surgical precision.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

SearsPoncho said:


> Don't know much about singing, so maybe someone else can enlighten us regarding what makes DFD's Winterreise so special.


I'm not knowledgeable enough about singers or history to say what is special about his _Winterreise_. With info from Wikipedia, here are a few relevant points: Fischer-Dieskau specialized in lieder; his attractive baritone voice was on the small side for opera. An excellent all-around musician, over the years he developed a large repertoire. He had joined the Wehrmacht when he was 18 in 1943, and was taken prisoner-of-war by the Americans in 1945. He was not implicated with the Nazis, unlike some of his competitors.


----------



## FastkeinBrahms (Jan 9, 2021)

And, of course, Gerald Moore was a decisive factor in this success Maybe the greatest Lieder accompanist ever, not just for Fischer Dieskau.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

FastkeinBrahms said:


> And, of course, Gerald Moore was a decisive factor in this success Maybe the greatest Lieder accompanist ever, not just for Fischer Dieskau.


Can you say what makes a pianist special in Schubert? Is it their willingness to do what the singer tells them? There used to be a video of Brendel and FiDi rehearsing Winterreise, it's kind of obvious who wears the trousers. I would have loved to have overheard his rehearsal with Richter.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

SearsPoncho said:


> This was not intended as a Gould thread. Gould was just the first name I came up with. ACB asked an interesting question on Toscanini and Beethoven.


I realise that this was not specifically a Gould thread but sadly his inclusion in any thread tends to elicit heated debate!


----------



## Simon23 (Dec 8, 2020)

I want to name a few more pairs:

George Tintner - Bruckner,
Gunther Wand - Bruckner,

Hans Knappertsbusch - Parsifal))

As for Bruckner, I believe that he is a special composer and to play him, you need to have a special character. Maybe religious.


----------



## FastkeinBrahms (Jan 9, 2021)

On Gerald Moore vs other Lieder pianists: While it is true that he made sure never to "outshine" his singers - the German version of his autobiography bears the characteristic title "Bin ich zu laut?" - he was at the same time a great interpreter of the music. It is hard to explain, maybe it is a question of balance and a certain amount of humility that strives to serve the music rather than shine through technique. Maybe a comparison to the Britten/Pearce recording of the Winterreise is instructive. I remain a huge fan, but mostly because of Britten's brillant piano playing, done with an expressiveness and understanding of a great composer. The downside: I keep focussing on the piano and often lose track of the singing, which - a few pronunciation issues aside - is very Gold, and , coming from a tenor, refreshingly different from Fischer Dieskau.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

..Gerald Moore in a nod to Britten, called himself the _second_ best accompanist in the world iirc.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

FastkeinBrahms said:


> On Gerald Moore vs other Lieder pianists: While it is true that he made sure never to "outshine" his singers - the German version of his autobiography bears the characteristic title "Bin ich zu laut?" - he was at the same time a great interpreter of the music. It is hard to explain, maybe it is a question of balance and a certain amount of humility that strives to serve the music rather than shine through technique. Maybe a comparison to the Britten/Pearce recording of the Winterreise is instructive. I remain a huge fan, but mostly because of Britten's brillant piano playing, done with an expressiveness and understanding of a great composer. The downside: I keep focussing on the piano and often lose track of the singing, which - a few pronunciation issues aside - is very Gold, and , coming from a tenor, refreshingly different from Fischer Dieskau.


Nice to meet someone else who appreciated Peers!


----------



## FastkeinBrahms (Jan 9, 2021)

Comparing apples and oranges: In German we compare apples and pears, in this case , to be precise, Fischer Dieskau and Peter Pears. Thank you for the correction.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I'll start off with the first name I mentioned: Glenn Gould's Bach. Gould's reputation and legacy is tethered to Bach. Why?_

Glenn Gould recorded that music in 1955 in a way that had never been done. Most Bach of the era was either romanticized or extremely slow. Gould reinvented the way Bach was played on a modern keyboard using more rapid speeds, a staccato-like attack, and almost no pedal so no reverb and exceptional clarity. It made such an impression he made a career of the technique.

Gould essentially did to Bach what the Viennese pianist Artur Schnabel did to Beethoven's piano sonatas a generation earlier. No pianist of the recording era had ever interpreted Beethoven the way Schnabel did -- and he recorded all 32 sonatas during the 1930s, then again later.

Fischer-Dieskau was the first singer to ever record the complete output of a composer, same as Rubinstein was the first pianist to ever record everything from Chopin. This gave extraordinary access to these performers to anyone/everyone buying recordings. Certainly their artistry was extreme but, even if it wasn't, they were the first to record everything.

Ditto for Dorati and the Haydn symphonies. Being "the first" to do something on such a titanic scale in classical music generally puts the person into a pantheon of classical music greatness.


----------



## mparta (Sep 29, 2020)

larold said:


> _I'll start off with the first name I mentioned: Glenn Gould's Bach. Gould's reputation and legacy is tethered to Bach. Why?_
> 
> Glenn Gould recorded that music in 1955 in a way that had never been done. Most Bach of the era was either romanticized or extremely slow. Gould reinvented the way Bach was played on a modern keyboard using more rapid speeds, a staccato-like attack, and almost no pedal so no reverb and exceptional clarity. It made such an impression he made a career of the technique.
> 
> ...


One word: marketing


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

larold said:


> _I'll start off with the first name I mentioned: Glenn Gould's Bach. Gould's reputation and legacy is tethered to Bach. Why?_
> 
> Glenn Gould recorded that music in 1955 in a way that had never been done. Most Bach of the era was either romanticized or extremely slow. Gould reinvented the way Bach was played on a modern keyboard using more rapid speeds, a staccato-like attack, and almost no pedal so no reverb and exceptional clarity. It made such an impression he made a career of the technique.
> 
> ...


Thank you. An excellent explanation, particularly your comments on Gould. Would you say there is something special about Rubenstein's Chopin, or is the "partnership" acclaimed because Rubenstein was a completist? The synthesis of an almost formal nobility with romantic emotionalism is not so easy to achieve, and I believe this is what we hear in most great Chopin players. Nevertheless, there are many great Chopin players. Do you believe Rubenstein's C is revered because most Chopin players emphasize the emotionalism of the music but fail to exercise the cooler restraint R demonstrates?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

mparta said:


> One word: marketing


That's a simplistic catch-all. Sometimes a performer's/composer's work markets itself.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

mparta said:


> One word: marketing


Another word: cobblers!


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> My discussion question: Why are Toscanini's Beethoven symphony recordings still so revered by many when there have been so many recordings in modern-sound since then? Did Toscanini achieve singular things with his orchestra that haven't been done since?


sure - the clarity, the drive, the impact, the sustained lines....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Ones that come to mind:

Bach: Gould, Gardiner
Beethoven: Furtwängler, Busch SQ, Schnabel
Berlioz: Colin Davis
Chopin: Rubinstein
Debussy: Gieseking
Delius: Beecham
Dvorak: Talich
Elgar: Barbirolli
Haydn: Dorati 
Liszt: Barere
Mahler: Bernstein
Palestrina: Tallis Scholars
Prokofiev: Richter
Ravel: Munch
Schubert: Fischer-Dieskau
Schumann: Cortot
Shostakovich: Kondrashin
J. Strauss: Krauss
R. Strauss: Karajan
Tchaikovsky: Mravinsky 
Verdi: Callas, Toscanini
Vivaldi: Marriner 
Wagner: Knappertsbusch


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

Kempff's Beethoven? Why is it special? Again, the question is not "why is it famous?".

His recordings of Beethoven's Piano Concertos are my favorite, particularly the set with Van Kempen conducting the Berlin Philharmonic, but the recordings of the sonatas are a bit hit and miss for me.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Would you say there is something special about Rubenstein's Chopin, or is the "partnership" acclaimed because Rubenstein was a completist?_

In the day there weren't that many people playing Chopin -- all his stuff -- so Rubinstein stood apart from others. This gave people access to Chopin he played they couldn't acquire from other players.

I liked Rubinstein but never was much for Chopin. He sometimes seemed a bit mechanical compared to other players I enjoyed but there is no way around saying Rubinstein was one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century. He also recorded a lot of modern music but nothing that was either atonal or less than melodic.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Here's one I'd be interested in hearing peoples' thoughts on: Karl Richter and Bach.

I can't help but feel that marketing or at least nostalgia _does_ play at least some role in these connections, since many core rep recordings from the 50s and 60s were the most widely available of those works for some time and thus were peoples' "imprints."


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Kempff's Beethoven? Why is it special? Again, the question is not why is it famous._

There's no question DG helped make Kempff and his Beethoven famous marketing two sets of all the sonatas in wonderful sound during the LP era.

Technically Kempff did things with pedaling and dynamic shading other Germans did not. There was an element of subtlety in his Beethoven people weren't used to from Germans. But there was another element even more unique to his playing.

The 1976 Penguin Guide said, "Kempff's Beethoven has been providing a deeply spiritual experience for record collectors since the 1920s ... there is no doubt whatever of the inner compulsion that holds these performances together. Kempff more than any pianist has the power to make one appreciate Beethoven in a new way ..."

In other words it was different than the leonine, powerful, mountain-climbing Beethoven most people knew or expected. It was playing that explored the inner soul of the composer rather than the external trappings of his mighty personality.

This was quite different from the prevailing style of the day greatly influenced by Artur Schnabel, whose playing was revered for technique, and other Germans such as Wilhelm Bachhaus who tended to make the music larger than life.

In their 1951 book "The Record Guide", one of the first books to try to review all recordings, Sackville-West and Shawe-Taylor said nothing about Kempff in their Beethoven section. "Schnabel is considered the leading Beethoven pianist of the day," they wrote, "but his great virtues of intellect and insight are accompanied by certain temperamental and technical eccentricities, notably a tendency to rush rapid passage to the detriment of steady rhythm and clarity of outline."

In his 1954 update, David Ewen's "Musical Masterpieces" moved away from these ideas. He recommended Beethoven sonata recordings by Kempff, Gieseking, Rudolf Serkin, Bachkaus & Solomon and only recommended Schnabel's recording of the final sonata No. 32.

Beginning in the 1950s the Englishman Solomon and German Alfred Brendel followed with an approach similar to Kempff's focusing on spiritual values. Paul Lewis, a protegee of Brendel who has recorded all the Beethoven sonatas, has done similarly.

Had Kempff not uncovered this version of Beethoven we are left to wonder if anyone would be playing it this way ... or just pounding away showing off their technique the way many have done. That is generally enough to convince most a player knows Beethoven well.

It was enough to convince New York critics that fellow New Yorker Igor Levit had the measure of Beethoven in his set of "the 32" that almost completely lacks Kempff's introspection. Yet critics all over the place fell over themselves praising the set as little less than Valhalla.

One New York Times critic compared Levit's Beethoven to Schnabel's in terms of pace and technique ... meaning we have come full circle in a century from Schnabel being best and back. This is why Kempff is special.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

larold said:


> _
> 
> Had Kempff not uncovered this version of Beethoven we are left to wonder if anyone would be playing it this way ... or just pounding away showing off their technique the way many have done. That is generally enough to convince most a player knows Beethoven well. It was enough to convince New York critics that Igor Levitt had the measure of Beethoven in his set of "the 32" that almost completely lacks Kempff's introspection._


_

When I heard Levitt do the Beethoven in a London cycle, for the concert with the last three I found myself sitting next to someone who was a piano student. We got talking. He loved Levitt, he'd been to every concert, some were given twice and he'd gone to both.

I didn't totally appreciate Levitt's concerts because I just don't like barnstorming, it's just not an aspect of music that interests me, and I said so. He just replied that that's Beethoven, Beethoven's music by its very nature demands that sort of approach._


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Here's one I'd be interested in hearing peoples' thoughts on: Karl Richter and Bach.


He's at his best when he has Fischer Dieskau.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Ones that come to mind:
> 
> Bach: Gould, Gardiner
> Beethoven: Furtwängler, Busch SQ, Schnabel
> ...


Interesting to see Rubinstein with Chopin and Cortot with Schumann. Did you do that because of something to do with the way they play, or public perception? Just thinking of that generation, and of pianists who were performing and recording in Europe and the USA, I would have put Cortot with Chopin, Rubinstein with Ravel and Moiseiwitsch with Schumann - on the basis of performance.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Here's one I'd be interested in hearing peoples' thoughts on: Karl Richter and Bach.
> 
> I can't help but feel that marketing or at least nostalgia _does_ play at least some role in these connections, since many core rep recordings from the 50s and 60s were the most widely available of those works for some time and thus were peoples' "imprints."


I love most of those Richter Bach recordings, although in some instances they're a little overblown with these Wagner-sized forces. He was pretty much a reference point before HIP became dogma. Still I'd rather hear a Richter or Günther Ramin recording than Koopman or Herreweghe. Gardiner for me is even more hit-and-miss than Richter. And couldn't it be said that HIP became ascendant through marketing as well? Or maybe a sort of inverse marketing in which enjoying Richter (or Rilling or Ramin) is seen as a kind of transgression from the "proper" kind of interpretation. Social pressure. YT videos of Richter et al are usually fillies with HIP true believers pointing out how "incorrect" it all is compared to Gardiner, Harnoncourt or Herreweghe. It's obnoxious.


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

consuono said:


> I love most of those Richter Bach recordings, although in some instances they're a little overblown with these Wagner-sized forces. He was pretty much a reference point before HIP became dogma. Still I'd rather hear a Richter recording than Koopman or Herreweghe. And couldn't it be said that HIP became ascendant through marketing as well? Or maybe a sort of inverse marketing in which enjoying Richter or Rilling is seen as a kind of transgression from the "proper" kind of interpretation. Social pressure.


Richter might be seen as a halfway point between the overblown Klemperer style of Bach that was prevalent and the modern HIP style of Gardiner et al. When I was a lad he was considered quite radical - in fact his 1958 St Matthew Passion and the cantatas were considered the 'modern' way to perform Bach. He didn't use Wagner style forces btw but they were much larger than today. His beat was pretty heavy though and I prefer today's approach. Rilling uses modern instruments but has a far lighter touch. I don't think it's social pressure at all but the fact that Bach sounds better with a lighter touch.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Handelian said:


> Richter might be seen as a halfway point between the overblown Klemperer style of Bach that was prevalent and the modern HIP style of Gardiner et al. When I was a lad he was considered quite radical - in fact his 1958 St Matthew Passion and the cantatas were considered the 'modern' way to perform Bach. He didn't use Wagner style forces btw but they were much larger than today. His beat was pretty heavy though and I prefer today's approach. Rilling uses modern instruments but has a far lighter touch. I don't think it's social pressure at all but the fact that Bach sounds better with a lighter touch.


I would call Rilling more of that middle ground *except* for the fact that Richter used a boys' chorus while Rilling didn't but probably should have. But yeah I'd still say much of it is social pressure. What sounds "better" to you with this "lighter touch" sounds wheezy and rushed to me. But I'm supposed to convince myself that this is better. I've never understood why it would be such a virtue to place restraints on a performance that Bach himself might have hated having to endure.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I’ll take Klemperer’s B Minor Mass any day over Richter’s. They are both slow, but Klemperer IMO imparts an overwhelming spirituality to the proceedings while Richter just sounds loud, overblown, and boring. I wouldn’t take either for the SMP, which demands at least a little forward impetus to sustain the drama.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I'll take Klemperer's B Minor Mass any day over Richter's. They are both slow, but Klemperer IMO imparts an overwhelming spirituality to the proceedings while Richter just sounds loud, overblown, and boring. I wouldn't take either for the SMP, which demands at least a little forward impetus to sustain the drama.


True, but the only HIP version of the St Matthew Passion I can take is the one by Suzuki. He's a treasure.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Interesting to see Rubinstein with Chopin and Cortot with Schumann. Did you do that because of something to do with the way they play, or public perception? Just thinking of that generation, and of pianists who were performing and recording in Europe and the USA, I would have put Cortot with Chopin, Rubinstein with Ravel and Moiseiwitsch with Schumann - on the basis of performance.


I prefer both Cortot's and Friedman's Chopin to Rubinstein, but you cannot argue with the completeness of Rubinstein's output owing to his well-deserved reputation as the go-to pianist for Chopin.

For Schumann, I think Cortot's recordings of the major works, including the concerto and even Dichterliebe give him a fair claim to be the most associated with RS.

I honestly don't know Rubinstein's Ravel. I turn to Gieseking here.


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

Bernstein's Mahler.

I once heard an old-school conductor (Reiner??) have a go at Mahler and it was horrible. The phrasing was radically different than what we've become accustomed to. It was played as if it was Mendelssohn. Although Bruno Walter showed the way, perhaps it was Bernstein who popularized not just Mahler, but the manner in which his music was played. Bernstein certainly had an affinity for some of the over-the-top traits and extremes inherent in Mahler's music, and exploited them in a manner which hadn't been heard since Bruno Walter. Perhaps Bernstein was sympathetic to some of the self-indulgent qualities of Mahler's music and was not afraid to not only bring them out, but emphasize them. I'm not too fond of some of the leaner approaches to Mahler that have become more popular over the last two decades. I'm definitely in the Bernstein/Walter camp, and Bernstein's recordings have better audio quality. The DVD recordings he made are also a must for any Mahler fan.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

SearsPoncho said:


> Bernstein's Mahler.
> 
> I once heard an old-school conductor (Reiner??) have a go at Mahler and it was horrible. The phrasing was radically different than what we've become accustomed to. It was played as if it was Mendelssohn. Although Bruno Walter showed the way, perhaps it was Bernstein who popularized not just Mahler, but the manner in which his music was played. Bernstein certainly had an affinity for some of the over-the-top traits and extremes inherent in Mahler's music, and exploited them in a manner which hadn't been heard since Bruno Walter. Perhaps Bernstein was sympathetic to some of the self-indulgent qualities of Mahler's music and was not afraid to not only bring them out, but emphasize them. I'm not too fond of some of the leaner approaches to Mahler that have become more popular over the last two decades. I'm definitely in the Bernstein/Walter camp, and Bernstein's recordings have better audio quality. The DVD recordings he made are also a must for any Mahler fan.


For me, Bernstein exceeded in Mahler because he was able to bring an incredible spur-of-the-moment excitement to the proceedings while simultaneously conveying the huge structural sweep of the symphonies. Sure, in some of his later recordings he could get a bit carried away trying to wring emotion from every note. But like you say, I would rather hear that than the more clinical, personality-free performances that have for the most part dominated the scene so far this century (with the big exception of the Tilson Thomas/San Francisco recordings, which are unique). Lenny is probably my favorite for the 6th (the Vienna recording) and is close to #1 for the 2nd (the final climax of his first recording is just apocalyptic), 3rd, 5th, and 7th. As for the comparison with Walter, it's interesting to note that Bruno generally became more relaxed and mellow in his conducting style in his later years, like he wanted to emphasize Mahler's Viennese Romantic roots, while Bernstein grew ever more hysterical and self-indulgent like he wanted to pinpoint the threshold of German Expressionism that Mahler approached in his music. However, in their early recordings, we can hear that both were remarkably fiery and unhinged.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

SearsPoncho said:


> Thank you. An excellent explanation, particularly your comments on Gould. *Would you say there is something special about Rubenstein's Chopin*, or is the "partnership" acclaimed because Rubenstein was a completist? The synthesis of an almost formal nobility with romantic emotionalism is not so easy to achieve, and I believe this is what we hear in most great Chopin players. Nevertheless, there are many great Chopin players. Do you believe Rubenstein's C is revered because most Chopin players emphasize the emotionalism of the music but fail to exercise the cooler restraint R demonstrates?


When I first started listening to CM I wanted all the Rubinstein recordings of Chopin because of the slow pace, the clarity and the better sound by the label. It takes a few years for our ears to HEAR music in all its details, so these recordings were very important for me.

Did Rubinstein record any of the Mozart solo sonatas? I'm guessing that when he was growing up these pieces weren't big and grand enough.


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

Callas: Bellini
Flagstad: Wagner
Hotter: Wagner
Bergonzi: Verdi

Böhm: Mozart, Strauss
Muti: Verdi
Horenstein: Mahler


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

Mitsuko Uchida and Mozart

Although she made some great recordings of Debussy (Etudes), Schoenberg (Piano Concerto) and Berg (Op.1 Sonata), as well as Beethoven and some of the Romantic composers, the composer Uchida is most closely associated with is Mozart. There's a purity and clarity to her Mozart which is a joy to hear and is devoid of any interpretive idiosyncrasies. It doesn't sound like she uses much pedal and she lets the music breathe and play out, as if the music has not gone through any filter. It's natural, without anything extra added. I must admit that I occasionally like a more aggressive approach, and when I do, I usually reach for Rudolph Serkin's recordings. 

Sviatoslav Richter and Prokofiev

There have been many great Prokofiev pianists, if fact, I'm not sure I've ever heard a bad Prokofiev sonata or concerto recording, however, I almost always reach for Richter's Prokofiev first. Perhaps it's not just his technical and musical abilities, but also his personality and temperament which suits this composer so well. One can hear his subtle gallows humor in parts of the extraordinary documentary Richter: The Enigma.


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

Alicia de Larrocha: Granados and Albeniz

The great Alicia de Larrocha owns this repertoire. Transcriptions of the piano music of Granados and Albeniz constitute a significant part of the classical guitar literature, and many classical guitarists listen to Madame de Larrocha's recordings for guidance. What's been said about Rubenstein's Chopin could also be said about de Larrocha's performances of Granados and Albeniz: It's as natural as a fish swimming. She was also no slouch in the Austro-German classics. An effortless virtuosity utilized in service of the composer.


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

Jean-Philippe Collard: Fauré
Ana-Marija Markovina: C.P.E. Bach
Scott Ross: Scarlatti


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

Tatiana Nikolaeva (pianist)/Shostakovich

Nikolaeva was a great Bach pianist who won an international Bach competition in Leipzig. Shostakovich was on the jury, and was so impressed by her Bach that he dedicated his own 24 Preludes and Fugues for Piano to the Russian pianist. Her recordings of Shostakovich's Preludes and Fugues are generally considered the gold standard. I believe she recorded them at least twice. I have the 1987 Melodiya recording, which has portraits of Nikolaeva and Shostakovich on the cover. I believe there's another recording with a horse on the cover, or perhaps it's the same recording(??). If you're interested in this music, I highly recommend her recording, which is in good sound, with crystal clear phrasing and musicality.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

The best recording of Dvorak's piano trios I ever heard is by the Suk Trio. Since Josef Suk was Dvorak's son-in-law and former student, who better to interpret Dvorak's works?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The violinist of that trio was the grandson of the composer Suk, thus Dvorak's great-grandson.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Barbebleu said:


> Sadly, in another dozen or so posts this thread will turn toxic like most other Gould threads. Not by me I would add. I'm a huge fan of Gould but the anti-Gould league will be out and about in no time at all. :lol:


He was something of a maverick. Much of his Bach and some of his Beethoven is revelatory but he none of it is the last word (_the last note_?) for these composers. It seems to me that what he offers is an often very rewarding alternative. Like you I don't get those who feel the need to rubbish everything he does - but I do get somewhat bemused when so many talk about his art as being as good as it gets.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

SearsPoncho said:


> Kempff's Beethoven? Why is it special? Again, the question is not "why is it famous?".
> 
> His recordings of Beethoven's Piano Concertos are my favorite, particularly the set with Van Kempen conducting the Berlin Philharmonic, but the recordings of the sonatas are a bit hit and miss for me.


I love Kempff's Beethoven sonata recordings. They are special to me because they sound like he is playing them for himself alone (or, some would say, for God). Listening to them is a very intimate experience and yet Beethoven emerges as a particularly profound composer under his fingers. I suppose the opposite - and an equally special opposite at that - are the Annie Fischer recordings (there's a name that is closely aligned in my mind with Beethoven) which are _performances_ intended to communicate with audiences. Fischer worked hard in the studio (the only time she recorded in a studio, I think) to distil what she had learned from years of playing the works in public.

Both Kempff and Fischer were very great Beethoven interpreters. There were (and are) others but that's Beethoven: so much of his music seems to thrive in a very wide variety of interpretations.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I love Kempff's Beethoven sonata recordings. They are special to me because they sound like he is playing them for himself alone (or, some would say, for God). Listening to them is a very intimate experience and yet Beethoven emerges as a particularly profound composer under his fingers.


Yes, that's the heart of the matter, and why I also consider him to be one of the greatest Beethoven interpreters.

At recitals Kempff might sometimes be a bit more extrovert.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I prefer Kempff's Schubert to his Beethoven - I'm one of those who prefers the more dramatic, improvisatory, rhetorical style of Beethoven performance (a la Gilels and Annie Fischer), but I love the way that Enthusiast describes his approach. There is always such an honest, unpretentious purity about his playing; some might call it bland and it doesn't always work for me but I can never find anything to challenge in his interpretive decisions; there's an unassailable _rightness_ about what he does. His Goldberg Variations are also a must-listen: on the slower side, on the exact opposite side of homogeneity than Gould, stripped of all ornamentation (this takes a while to get used to), but he plays Bach like a wise old uncle telling you old stories about his childhood; gentle, warm, and humane.

Here's a few other interesting connections that come to mind for the thread topic which I all think would make good discussion (they are not all my favorites, but they are often rated very highly by critics and listeners alike): The Tallis Scholars and early music, both J.E. Gardiner and Karl Richter (on polar opposite ends of the spectrum) for Bach's choral works, Michelangeli for Debussy, Elisabeth Schwarzkopf for Strauss's Four Last Songs


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I never got the appeal of the two Wilhelms in Beethoven, Kempff probably even less than Backhaus. Admittedly this is only based on about a handful of sonatas for each as were available in separate anthologies. Backhaus seems rather dry to me, Kempff too lyrical. Neither seems sufficiently dynamic, powerful and expressive.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I prefer Kempff's Schubert to his Beethoven -


On the other hand I find Kempff's Schubert much too sweet and botanizing, and maybe it's because I generally find Schubert too sweet and incoherent.

If you look for improvisatory and rhetorical style with much rubato, I think Scherbakov might interest you.


----------



## EnescuCvartet (Dec 16, 2016)

The one that immediately springs to mind for me is Sofronitsky and Scriabin. They are indelibly linked in my mind. I do favor old recordings, and his recordings were the first I heard when I went seeking out Scriabin. The alliteration doesn't hurt either.

I also can't get along without DFD's Schubert. What a man D was. His books on lied and on the Schubert lied in particular are essential. I like that he had definite ideas of performance and that they were formed largely based on reason and not emotion, you can tell this from his writings. I also like that you can sense a give and take with his accompanist through the various recordings, even though he was the expert in any duo he was in, there's no doubt about that. I think he was also a purist at heart. You don't hear him singing Ave Maria, for example, like Pavoratti. I do also like the Pears/Britten cycles.


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

*Ferenc Fricsay/Bela Bartok*
*With an assist from Geza Anda

The Ambassador for Bartok
There has been some well-deserved love lately for Maestro Fricsay. I recently listened to his recording of Bartok's Divertimento for Strings and enjoyed it very much. Why is Fricsay's Bartok special? Well, first some background: Fricsay was Hungarian and studied at the Franz Liszt Academy of Budapest with Bartok and Kodaly. That's a pretty good start. Much of Bartok's music must have been quite difficult for audiences at the time. Even when I started listening to classical music, I found Stravinsky's music more approachable. I eventually bought recordings by Fricsay and Reiner, and I was hooked. Fricsay had an ability to present the modern elements of Bartok's music, with it's spiky dissonance, percussive emphasis, and 20th century rhythmic variety, without exaggerating these features or glossing over the sharper corners. However, the music still sounds approachable and follows a linear narrative, just like the classical music of the previous 200-300 years. The folk music is effortlessly incorporated, and there is great clarity and balance to his precious Bartok recordings. Of course, he also had the advantage of performing and recording with the great Hungarian pianist Geza Anda. Together, their advocacy of Bartok brought the piano concertos into the mainstream. One of the last concerts I attended before the pandemic was Bartok's 2nd Piano Concerto played by Lang Lang and my local orchestra. Yeah, I would say that's mainstream.

I believe Fricsay was an ambassador for Bartok's music. He introduced much of the world to this exciting new music with all its modernity, yet there was a direction to the music that people could follow; in other words, his music-making essentially said, "Come on in, the water's nice and warm." At this point of my life, I don't find his piano concertos or orchestral music significantly more "difficult" than those of Beethoven, and I attribute much of that to Maestro Friscay. Fritz Reiner also deserves a great deal of credit, but this post is just about Fricsay. As many of you know, Fricsay was great conducting other composers. His Beethoven 9th is one of the most famous recordings of the ultimate masterpiece.

P.S. While there's no way to really discern this, the musicians who played for him sound like they're really enjoying themselves.


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

*Martha Argerich and Ravel*

Martha, Martha, Martha! When one thinks of Argerich, the composers that first come to mind are probably Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Rachmaninov and Prokofiev, but she was also in her element playing Ravel. Her recordings of Gaspard de la Nuit, the Sonatine, the Concerto in G, Jeux d'eau, as well as her 2 piano recordings, all benefit from her remarkable technique and virtuosity, which allow her to focus on subtleties of musicianship and color which bring Ravel's music to life. It's not sentimental (see the slow movement of the Concerto in G), but it's always special. She makes it sound effortless, which is not easy to do with Ravel's piano music. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any recordings she made of the complete Miroirs.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Shostakovich: Tatiana Nikolayeva. Has to be.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

^^ I've heard a particular recording of Shostakovich's Piano Concerto No. 2. The sound quality is quite poor, but what made it special is it's Shostakovich himself performing his own Concerto.


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

*Bruno Walter and Brahms*

Bruno Walter's Mahler and Mozart is very well-known and respected, but I'm not sure he's thought of as one of the greatest Brahms conductors. He is. It's killer. Why is it special? His recordings of all the symphonies are 1st-rate, especially the two most difficult symphonies for conductors and orchestras to get right: The Second and Third Symphonies. He combines steely German Classicism, earnestness and discipline with Brahms' wistful lyricism and almost child-like tenderness. It's big and bold enough to satisfy the people who like their Brahms big, thick, tough and dense, but there is also a clarity of purpose, direction, phrasing, and, ultimately, form which should satisfy those who like the leaner approach that so many conductors have adopted over the last thirty years. It's big but never bloated.

Of course there are many other great Brahms conductors...or are there? :lol: Anyhow, I do like some Klemperer, Karajan and Abbado as well, but I just wanted to get the word out that Maestro Walter was one of the great Brahms conductors, and one can hear it in the excellent Columbia Symphony performances or the older recordings he made.


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

*Charles Mackerras and Janacek*

Mackerras had a special affinity for Janacek's music. It certainly helped that he studied conducting with Vaclav Talich at the Prague Academy of Music. Talich was the chief conductor of the Czech Philharmonic Orchestra and a friend of Janacek; he conducted premieres of many Janacek works. Mackerras subsequently absorbed the major influences on Janacek's mature style, including Czech folk music and speech patterns, and was instrumental in the promoting Janacek's music and furthering scholarship regarding Janacek's unique style and influences.

Mackerras is generally considered to be the go-to conductor for those wanting "modern" stereo recordings of Janacek's symphonic work and operas. If you like Janacek, you can't go wrong with Mackerras...at least I haven't.


----------

