Pianists are getting better, and recordings too.

When I was a music student, it was fashionable for wind players to bemoan the rhythmic imprecision of young pianist. Playing a single line instrument, most good players quickly develop dead accurate rhythm in any meter thrown your way, and also to sight read new music accurately effortlessly.

These days, my ear confirms that 90 people never attain the level of precision that a single pianist can, especially a Hewitt, Zimerman or Pollini.

I have several sets of the Chopin etudes, but I find my favorite and the one I return to most often is a 1983 recording by Juana Zayas, recently reissued by Music and Arts.

Fred,

The Yundi Ki recording of Prokofiev Piano Concerto No. 2 with Ozawa and Berlin came yesterday. I gave it a spin first thing this morning.

First off, the recording is very clear, and the playing from everyone is top-notch, with a tight, concise, fleet footed rhythm that Prokofiev demands.

You never know how Prokofiev is going to come at you (this music is new to me).

I like what I hear in this performance, but it's going to take a few more listens for me to get my bearings. Most of the Prokofiev I love took me four or five listens to get into.

This is not quite like anything else in my collection.

I think it will be worth putting the time into.

Excuse the double post, but I gave the 1st movement of the Prokofiev Piano Concerto No. 2 cited above another listen, and scribbled some notes, which follow.

Rachmaninoff morphing into Prokofiev.

An "awkard" theme, with "jerky" rhythm. Is it fugal? I hear no fugue.

No feeling of "going with the flow", like Brahms.

Cadenza - negative energy. Where is the resolution? Rachmaninoff returns.

SO LOUD!

Heavy handed orchestration.

Nice sense of peace :-)

I think I want to hear it again.

Blechacz doing the Chopin Preludes came today.

Clear evidence pianist are getting better.

Chopin never spoke more clearly.

The recorded sound is beautiful and full of partials.

This year has opened my eyes to piano.

Many thanks for the recommendations, they are among the best I own.

Florestan, Dan Carney, you still there?

quote:

Chopin never spoke more clearly.

Are you sure?

Shostakovich: 24 Preludes and Fugues, Op. 87 - Jenny Lin, piano

Tremendous work of music, tremendous pianist, tremendous recording.

Dig it ... now!

All best,
Fred

Mike,

I've been travelling around the UK visiting family for Xmas etc.

I'm glad you liked the Blechacz. I felt his recordings to be very refreshing. His choice of tempi seem to fit the music perfectly - everything flows as it should.

Blechacz was a student of my teacher's friend (from back in Poland). Word has it, he practices for 8 hours every day - I think it certainly shows - he really seems to understand the music, and has the ability to communicate it in such an accurate and clear manner - marvellous really, considering he is only 24 (and won the Chopin Competition at 20 !)

His Chopin Concerti are also very good. However, IMO, they can't compete with those of Zimerman - well, yet, anyway.
However, if you compare them with Zimerman's earlier Chopin Concerti (with Giulini) there is not a lot in it.

I think this guy will go far!

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

quote:

Chopin never spoke more clearly.

Are you sure?

Never better in my experience, I should say.

I am relearning what I thought I knew about piano music.

Dan, after listening to Blechacz play Chopin, it has never been clearer that Chopin is the major bridge figure between Beethoven and Debussy.

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:


Shostakovich: 24 Preludes and Fugues, Op. 87 - Jenny Lin, piano

Tremendous work of music, tremendous pianist, tremendous recording.

Dig it ... now!

All best,
Fred

I'm getting this one Fred, but I have to finish my Chopin binge first; Pollini Chopin Etudes came and haven't been given a listen yet :-)

I have Keith Jarret doing the Shostakovitch. Do you know that one? I've never really paid it any attention.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
I have Keith Jarret doing the Shostakovitch. Do you know that one? I've never really paid it any attention.

Mike - Jarrett is my favourite pianist (apart from Fred of course!). All his music is worth trying especially some of his solo concerts. His Shostakovich is highly regarded. I found this review of it and also look at what people say about it on amazon.com. As you have it in your collection, seems to me you should be giving it some air time. Will go and get my copy out also.

http://www.stereophile.com/rec...fthemonth/1292rotm/#

Thanks Lontano, I'll give the Jarrett Shostakovitch a listen this weekend.

As soon as the Stravinsky arrives from Amazon, I'll send it your way.

quote:

...Blechacz. I felt his recordings to be very refreshing.

Dan, I find Blechacz to be a very interesting pianist as well. As you may have noted from comments I have made elsewhere that I tend to not compare pianist in order to rate them on a pedestal or believe in a right or wrong way, rather, I like to judge them individually on their own merits and try to understand what it is they are trying to convey through the music.

At the moment, I only have his Chopin Preludes and the Concerti. What I like is the incredible detail and control in his playing. But the interesting point for me about Blechacz is how he tends to keep the "emotion" bottled up, in check, and mostly in reserve. For this, I'd say he has a lot in common with Pollini.

This is the "refreshing" aspect for me as it gives me another viewpoint somewhat to the left of a "Romantic" centre point. I'd even go as far as to call him a Classical Romantic, if there could even be such a thing.

I've only been listening to his Chopin Concerto for a couple of months now. Incredible playing without a doubt but my main challenge is to remove my own preconceptions of these pieces and come to terms with a more straight and narrow reading. These pieces to me are a teeter totter for lyrical beauty and poetry, on the one hand, and passionate, heart-tugging turmoil on the other hand. It is at these climaxes, through the chase, that I find myself wanting more.

I'm so glad though that I own these recordings though and am planning to get the Sonata album soon. I've learned a lot from really listening to him. As a pianist (and no, I don't earn my living from this at the moment) I started out at a very young age with Chopin dead in the centre of my world (especially Preludes/Etudes/Scherzi/Balladen). From here I grew outward in both directions in my interests (spanning a range of about 120 years either way from 1830). This covers 95% of about everything that really interests me.

By your comments about Blechacz, I'm thinking that we may agree. Zimerman, although I don't believe has recorded the Preludes or Etudes, would probably tend to push the emotional climaxes to a greater extent than Blechacz?

Blechacz, in the Concerti, is a little restrained in his 'expression'. Not to say he lacks any emotion/expression, he just saves it. However, when he really goes for it, it makes such a difference. In this respect, he reminds me of a young Zimerman.

I agree. Zimerman has matured into a master of emotional control - he can really 'turn it on' when needs be. When he does, he can be mind-blowing - especially live.

Blechacz is a little more reserved and is a very detailed player. He understands the flow of the music and everything sounds like it's in place.

I'm going to order (when the student loan has landed) the Blechacz Haydn, Beethoven, etc. CD.

Have any of you seen footage of him? I've got a couple of bits - live from the Chopin Comp. final (Chopin e), live in Japan, and the Chopin Comp. winners recital. He's an interesting one to watch, too.

Chopin has, too, been at the centre of my pianistic education. Florestan, where did you study? Do you still perform at all?

On another note, one of the most interesting piano recordings I have heard lately is David Fray's CD of Schubert (Moment Musicals/Impromptus). Very sensitive playing of these tricky pieces. So beautiful it brings tears to the eyes. A great young talent in my opinion

David Fray is a fake !

If you can find footage of his Bach (youtube), you will see that he sways in the style of Gould, sits very low (Gould), has a very similar technique to Gould, and hums/sings quite loudly ; LIKE GOULD!

I'll take a listen to the Schubert.

On the off chance, does anyone know of any good interpretations/recordings of Schubert's D.664 sonata in A? I'm performing this at the end of January. I've got Uchida, Wilhelm Kempff, Brendel, and Lupu. Let me know if there are any others that are worth a listen.

Dan, will your performance be recorded? If so, could I get a copy?

My nickle's worth : I find the Blechacz Chopin Preludes to be absolutely volcanic, and not lacking in romantic fire in any way, even if his technique is flawless and his rhythm exact to the atomic level. Who says you have to have slop to be romantic?

Mike, if it is recorded, I'll send a CD ! I hope it is.

For me, they don't seem quite volcanic - this is more than likely to me owning a set of Argerich's Preludes - recorded live. They are brimming. However, I find Blechacz to be just so accurate, the true meaning of Chopin comes across.

Check out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2UWiqVyCQc

For me, a flawless execution illuminates a performance like a holy fire, magnifying the emotion and meaning in every note to greater affect than any other means.

quote:

does anyone know of any good interpretations/recordings of Schubert's D.664 sonata in A?

Nice choice. I have the four names you've listed above (Uchida, Wilhelm Kempff, Brendel, and Lupu). I don't have time to go through everything I have but I know immediately that I also have Richter, Schiff, Pires, Ashkenazy, and Planes. The four you list are among my favorites and should do you fine. If you wish try Richter or Pires. I'd recommend anyone of these really.

I was trying very hard to think of only younger players who might be around 22 years old Many believe this Sonata was written when he was 22 and published first 10 years later. What are your thoughts on Kempff since he was probably well into his 70's when he recorded the Schubert Piano Sonatas? Are you able to connect with it?

quote:

A pianist who is 60, sits down and learns a Schubert Sonata. However, Schubert wrote this sonata when he was 19. I think the younger pianist will have the upper-hand in grasping the 'spirit' of the piece in a much more convincing way. Why? Because they are in similar places emotionally. Obviously, an older, wiser pianist will more than likely play something like Brahms Op. 119 and grasp the maturity in a more appropriate manner than a much younger pianist.

Well, in answer to this scenario which you proposed here in a different thread, I wonder if one can reason that being of a common age with the composer will help your interpretation in any way by being emotionally similar or finding the spirit? I personally think not. Certainly, a 22 year old has the advantage with having a newer body; technically, this offers some advantage physically. The type of music might also be factor. I can think of no baroque, classical, or romantic composer in which it would be an advantage to merely be the younger player. I would argue though that the experience of Kempff (in this case) or an older player in general certainly is the greater strength to have and the true advantage. Don't forget, older people were young once too but have a lifetime of experience and hard knocks and life. Remember, iron sharpens iron. A 19 year old is generally still green behind the ears - basically still learning notes and building a repertoire. It's not that a young player can't or shouldn't play - that is not what I am saying here - they should in fact play and as often as possible. I am saying that in most cases the older player will have something more profound to say overall. When you are much older and hear a 20 year old play you will see what I mean. (and their are always exceptions to everything). I'm generalizing here.

Secondly, you are presuming that being a similar age to the composer is the key to understanding or connection here. First, you'd have to assume you are on the same level as Schubert to begin with (at any age). Secondly, none of us have lived in the early 1800's. This was a time in history like no other. In general, I sincerely doubt that many, if any, 19 year olds today are even comparable to a 19 year old Bach, Beethoven, or Brahms and the like etc. Our current times are so far removed from that of 180 or 200 years ago and this assures us that we will never see composers such as these again. These were special and unique people to compare oneself to. No one like them before and certainly no one like them since. Frankly, most 19 year olds today have not suffered enough (everything is given to them). Most have not the required attention span required to play slow or longer pieces (imagine Schubert's B flat major Sonata). OK, I'll stop before I get myself into trouble... Bottom line: the youthful energy and excitement might be their in spades but for some music their is more to it than just that alone. If you were able to listen to yourself at 20, 40, or 60, for example, you should hopefully see what I mean.

It is no different in listening to the early works of Beethoven and Schubert compared to the late works. Their is a common thread throughout (you can tell the character of them in either case) but the later works have such a greater depth and dimension to them. A 70 year old Kempff will, in the same way, add so much more depth and understanding to an early sonata as to an late one.

Just my opinion.

Dan--give a listen to Fray's Schubert CD and give us your thoughts. I haven't seen any youtube video of his playing, just listened to the music. He may be as weird as Gould, and while you could say Gould was many things, fake wouldn't be one description I would use. Disturbed? A hypocondriac? Probably, but he did make some wonderful music ( I still find his Brahms Intermezzi disc very moving, if very different from any other pianist. His Mozart Concerto No.24 in C-Minor also remains a favorite even if he professed a dislike for Mozart! And the Byrd/Gibbons recital was special. Also Gould had a beautiful technique and tone. I'd say if Fray is another Gould that would be fine by me. He'd likely drive me nuts if I saw him live and he went through a bunch of contortions, especially if it detracted from the music.

There is a fire in youth that the reflection of age can not compensate for. Each holds its own treasures.

Who can say how a thing like this may play out in performance?

On another topic, I am a long time admirer of Glenn Gould. Enough said :-)

quote:

Who says you have to have slop to be romantic?

Certainly not me! Mike, perhaps you are jumping to the wrong conclusions here?

The Chopin Preludes have been in my life a long time. I just noticed on my Henle copy that I bought it in 1989 and this book hasn't strayed too far from the piano since. (at the time it was a struggle to get a good edition and it took me years to buy the complete Chopin for starters) I tinkered with these with a cheaper Dover Edition and then the Paderewski (Polish edition) from the start for many years before this. Chopin to me might be like Stravinsky to you. As it stands, I know very little of Stravinsky in comparison.

The point to consider is that their are degrees of separation between what you are likely to hear from live performers and recordings. Going from Blechacz to Arrau to Pollini to Argerich show an individual difference and variation of style and interpretation. (Much like the difference between Hewitt and Pollini in the Bach WTC). Comments made earlier simply tried to indicate how Blechacz comes across. Their was no negative implication to this in my mind. I like every recording I have of the Preludes, including Blechacz. I will probably buy everything he ever records.

I have noticed that many people who are generally not accepting of the notion of Romanticism generally tend to assign a very negative association with it (case in point: slop . To me, this is quite unexplainable and troubling and misses the mark by a wide margin.

One can, if they wish, play any music using attributes of different time periods to change the character. For example, you may play Bach in a strict Baroque style (maybe Walcha or Pollini) or leaning towards a more Romantic style (maybe Hewitt or Perahia). You may also play Chopin down the middle or tending to the the various extremes on either side too. Nothing wrong with this and the world still turns despite this.

By comparison, Blechacz is the more subtle player (hardly volcanic in my opinion). Night and day difference between someone like Argerich who stakes her claim in no uncertain terms and goes to the edge. Like it or not she is an exciting player with an unpredictable wildness. Her Bach 2nd Partita is one of the best recordings out there.

In the Romantic period composers started using more descriptive instructions. The degrees of latitude have suddenly increased and composers expressed emotion much more strongly. When I compare Blechacz to Argerich it is usually in terms of the more aggressive, virtuosic pieces. While the e minor Largo [meaning: Very slow and broad, with dignity] (#4), for example, allows the player ample room to interpret it in various ways the differences tend to be less dramatic.

Compare that to the B flat minor Presto con fuoco [meaning: Very quick, (faster than Vivace), and with fire or much energy] (#16). With a million notes the player has ample opportunity to take the piece in so many directions. This is literally one minute of shear terror (in playing it, that is). Blechacz is absolutely note perfect and probably metronomically perfect too. Very nice indeed but not putting a lot of emphasis on the "with fire" part. It is more thoughtful and reasoned in this regard. For an entirely different view, Argerich IS on fire. Probably not 100% note perfect and not metronomically perfect in the same way either. But it is a bite your nails on the edge of your seat exciting. She has momentum and you get the feeling of acceleration into the rising runs (a sharp crescendo/diminuendo can give this effect). When the thematic material repeats you know their is a crescendo leading into fortissimo (from forte) with her. Chopin adds the octave to the left hand leaps here. Initially, Argerich digs into these with great effect. It is just stunning. The left hand is really the underlying key that holds this Prelude together. Doesn't sound like much but a real feat to pull it off. Both Blechacz and Argerich nail it but each does it very differently. The only flaw for Argerich is that the recorded sound isn't as good, IMHO. It is a little too percussive / bright for my ears.

Pollini is just as good in the Preludes and Etudes and highly recommended. Mike, I think I read that you just got the Pollini Etudes. At some point you should also get the Pollini Preludes as well (being that you already really like Pollini). I'm thinking Argerich isn't your style and you may have trouble with it.

For me, I like to play or think of the set of 24 Preludes in 3 groups of 8 (#1-8, 9-16, 17-24). #8, 16, and 24 fitting in naturally as very passionate and driven pieces.

quote:

Originally posted by Lontano:

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
I have Keith Jarret doing the Shostakovitch. Do you know that one? I've never really paid it any attention.

Mike - Jarrett is my favourite pianist (apart from Fred of course!)

You wouldn't be mocking me, now, would you, Mr. Far Away?

quote:

All [Jarrett's] music is worth trying especially some of his solo concerts. His Shostakovich is highly regarded. I found this review of it and also look at what people say about it on amazon.com. As you have it in your collection, seems to me you should be giving it some air time. Will go and get my copy out also.

http://www.stereophile.com/rec...fthemonth/1292rotm/#

For the most part, Jarrett is my favorite pianist, even more than Fred.

In improvisation-related music, it's Jarrett for me, hands down (so to speak). But as a classical pianist, while quite wonderful, Jarrett is not my be-all-end-all ... for instance, I prefer Barenboim's WTC to Jarrett's. His Shostakovich is superb, but so, too, is the Jenny Lin ... perhaps even more so. Soon I plan to do some side-by-side listening.

In the review I was intrigued by the comparisons of expressiveness and its relation to tempo between Jarrett's recording and one by Tatiana Nikolayeva, the pianist for whom Shostakovich wrote the work. In general, it seems her performance (which I haven't heard) is markedly slower ... more expressive and with more rubato; according to the reviewer, Jarrett's is more "analytical," whatever that means. Comparisons of duration show that Jarrett's Prelude and Fugue No.13 lasts 7:03, Nikolayeva's 10:05; Jarrett's No.16 runs to 8:59, Nikolayeva's 12:44 ... these are huge differences in such short pieces. Jenny Lin's durations are much closer to Jarrett's, and even shorter in the case of No.13. And then there is more than one recording by Nikolayeva ... I hope to check out at least one of them.

In any case, there is widespread opinion that Shostakovich's Op.87 is one of the greatest of all solo piano works, and I certainly wouldn't argue.

All best,
Fred