Schubert D960, any suggestions ?

Richter's recording of D.960 is coupled with D.958 in C minor. D.958 receives a superb performance but I am not enamoured of his D960: in the first movement he is even slower than Kempff, and he very strangely plays down the tune of the second subject (in F sharp minor) in the left hand and emphasises the ornamentation in the treble part. Also he is too loud (in my opinion) in the second. However Richter's Schubert is invariably worth listening to and the disc is available at bargain price so you may want to get it.

quote:

the disc is available at bargain price

There are apparently two recordings readily available, one on Olympia ('72) and another recording of '63. Which one do you mean ? I guess Richter might have been better in '63 in general, although he kept his intensity till the end.

quote:

Originally posted by Cheese:
There are apparently two recordings readily available

There are at least five different recordings of Richter playing D960, and at least four of them should be available without excessive hunting.

There's '57 on Preiser and Parnassus; a '61 on Brilliant; a '64 on at least five labels; the August '72 recording on at least eight labels; and a September '72 on Praga. May be more out there. I've not heard them all.

Richter tends to be somewhat hit and miss; either one loves his distended take, or one finds it self-indulgent.


--

quote:

There are apparently two recordings readily available, one on Olympia ('72) and another recording of '63. Which one do you mean ? I guess Richter might have been better in '63 in general, although he kept his intensity till the end.

Sorry for being so vague. I meant the 1972 recording. Mine is on the Regis label but the original recording was by Olympus.

quote:

Originally posted by Cheese:
Earwicker, thanks for your input, I have got both discs two days ago and honestly I don't think I will ever find a better version.

As yet I am not overwhelmed by Wilhelm Kempff, maybe I expected too much. I think he is a bit slow, technically he has played better than that (some notes are kind of 'missing') and above all, the DG guys have again messed up the recording in the most terrible manner. Maybe I'll come to like it someday.

But Brendel in London !! It's huge. The third and fourth movements are moments of great, great piano. Brendel hits the nail in terms of sound and intensity. Unlike you, Earwicker, I love this 'spacy' recording, it sounds less perfect but more like what you really hear when you're sitting in the audience. And as far as I know that's what Brendel prefers - he often complained about mikes being placed in the piano itself, making it sound 'onmipresent'.

Yes, Brendel has said that hasn't he. In his essays, he tells us with considerable pleasure how he harangues engineers into making him sound the way he thinks he ought to, so I'm not sure what he's complaining about! Philips's piano sound is famous; a bit close perhaps, but the compromise is stark and simple - move the mike away for more space and ambiance, and lose the detail and the dynamic range. In the early days of Nimbus Records and similar, I was often struck by how some "audiophile" engineers seemed to be far more interested in the acoustic properties of the hall than the performance itself!

As for Kempff - he isn't overwhelming, but that's sort of the point. He can sound a bit studied and cautious, but his grasp of style and structure is absolute. It's not so critical with Schubert as he never quite grasped counterpoint (he was taking lessons when he died) but his way with fugues and voice-leading again has not been surpassed; try the famous Beethoven cycles!

Overall though I agree - Brendel has it, but of course he has Kempff's recordings at his disposal to learn from!

EW

quote:

Philips's piano sound is famous

Funny you say that too - I also made good experiences with Philips most of the time when it comes to piano, even with orchestra. Brahms 1 by Brendel/Concertgebouw/Isserstedt remains, to me, one of the greatest recordings of a piano concerto, and not only in terms of sound quality.

quote:

Nimbus Records

I own only one recording on Nimbus, it's Chopin sonata 3 by Vlado Perlemuter. It is my favourite performance, I prefer it to both Cortot and Rubinstein - nevertheless, I haven't listened to it in years simply because the sound (and it's a fairly modern recording, '80s I think) is terrible beyond belief.

quote:

Originally posted by Cheese:
Funny you say that too - I also made good experiences with Philips most of the time when it comes to piano, even with orchestra. Brahms 1 by Brendel/Concertgebouw/Isserstedt remains, to me, one of the greatest recordings of a piano concerto, and not only in terms of sound quality.

Cheese,

What a fantastic record! I bought the LP in the 70's (!) and still listen to it on a regular basis.

Brahms' 2nd, with Brendel/Concertgebouw/Haitink, is also a great record. But my first choice remains the No. 1.

Claude

quote:

Originally posted by Cheese:

quote:

Nimbus Records

I own only one recording on Nimbus, it's Chopin sonata 3 by Vlado Perlemuter. It is my favourite performance, I prefer it to both Cortot and Rubinstein - nevertheless, I haven't listened to it in years simply because the sound (and it's a fairly modern recording, '80s I think) is terrible beyond belief.

They're a mixed bag. I was heavily into the violin repertoire when I was young, and of course Nimbus had Schumsky! There is a recording of the Bach concertos which sounds gorgeous! But then there is a recording of the Mozart 3 & 4 with YP Tortelier, again recorded in Queen's Hall in Edinburgh - but sadly this time the engineer who liked the sound of echo must have been on duty, and the whole performance is swamped in this whacking great mire of empty hall reverberation! This is sin enough, but I can NEVER forgive them for what they did to the late great Gerhard Hetzel's (in my view) unsurpassed recording of the Bartok concertos with Adam Fischer. The soloist has a mike under his nose, and sounds like he's in a different room from the orchestra who again have been captured by The Echo Man who obviously thinks the sound of an empty concert hall reverberating is more important than Bartok's remarkable score!

EW

The style of recording that Nimbus adopted is surely something to perplex the lover of great music making. Their artist roster was amazing and not only for a small independant label.

I had a recording of Haydn's Trumpet and Horn Concertos played by the Philharmonia, and it was a wonderful collection of performances, but I found the recording strangely unfocussed. Very difficult to enjoy. What a shame.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
The style of recording that Nimbus adopted is surely something to perplex the lover of great music making.

I think there was just a school of thought particularly prevalent in those days that took the view that "audiophiles" liked etched-in-space recordings with a very great deal of echo. Well, audiophiles might have done, but it was a disaster for people more interested in hearing the actual performance!

I seem to recall hearing a smaple CD from a company called Audiophile some time in the very early 90s - if memory serves off the front of Hi-Fi Choice - and that was in a similar vein - musicians right at the back of a large empty hall with lots of reverberation. Depressing.

By the way, Gerhart Hetzel's Bartok recordings I mention above are, I gather, now available as part of a super-budget Bartok orchestral set on Brilliant Classics, which I'd recommend to anyone remotely interested despite the sound quality. More info on the great man here (for those of you who speak Japanese!):

http://www.hetzelianer.com/home/

EW