PDA

View Full Version : Liszt`s piano transcriptions


PDG
12-11-2000, 09:48 PM
I`d like to know what other people think of Liszt`s transcriptions of Beethoven`s symphonies. Has anyone attended such a performance? What did you think?

I only have no.s 2,5,6,7 & 8 on CD at present, but they all sound terribly difficult - esp. no. 5. I approached these `curiosities` with scepticism, but, I am not embarrassed to say, they completely blew me away. They are awesome. We know that Liszt idolized Beethoven, and it is obvious from the painstaking effort involved, that for the former, this was a real labour of love.

Why did Beethoven never contemplate transcribing the symphonies himself? Or did he? I know that there were simplified, play-at-home versions available, but with his keen, profit-directed mind, this bread and butter work would surely have swelled the coffers - these works would have thrilled audiences. Forgive my flight of fancy here, but allowing for Beethoven`s wicked sense of humour, I can well imagine him taunting his illustrious contemporaries, in the developing age of the pianoforte, along the lines of: `Until quite recently, I was able to play these works perfectly well, of course; but alas, my hearing is not QUITE what it was, so I leave it to you to show them off, and enhance your own reputations!!`

Did Liszt, while paying due respect to the master, have one eye on his own fame? Are there idiosyncracies in the scores which guaranteed that ONLY he, the greatest pianist in history, would ever be able to play them properly? I ask this because I know of no recordings of these piano versions which were completed without the help of studio trickery (even Glenn Gould needed help).

What is the historical value of Liszt`s efforts? Should he have left well alone, as, for all I know, Beethoven consciously did? Personally, I am very pleased that Liszt went to the trouble - I think that Beethoven would have been flattered.

Serge
12-11-2000, 11:35 PM
One of the great regrets of my life to date is that I have not heard any of the Beethoven nine as transcibed by Liszt. Not one. I have heard amazing things about the piano versions and I intend to get a CD with any of them ASAP.

So, having not heard them, I can offer no insight into Liszt's interpretation. I can, though, say that Liszt was a virtuoso first and composer second. He made a fantastic living as a showman pianist (apparently so good as to have women faint at his performances), but a showman pianist needs showman works to play. I'm quite certain his transcriptions, if they are as complex as everyone says, were half meant as laudation of Ludwig and half as proof to the world that Liszt was the preeminent pianist of his generation (or century or millennium). The works I have heard of Liszt are all dizzyingly flashy-- enjoyable, but of relatively little substance, as far as I see.

I have heard heaps of praise for the Ludwig nine on piano, so I'll give them a shot with eager ears.


p.s. have any of you heard Wagner's transcription of Ludwig's ninth? It's quite good; I esp. enjoy the way the chords are written in the thematic material of the 4th mov't.

Rod
12-12-2000, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by Serge:
One of the great regrets of my life to date is that I have not heard any of the Beethoven nine as transcibed by Liszt. Not one. I have heard amazing things about the piano versions and I intend to get a CD with any of them ASAP.

p.s. have any of you heard Wagner's transcription of Ludwig's ninth? It's quite good; I esp. enjoy the way the chords are written in the thematic material of the 4th mov't.

I suggest the principle merit of L's transcriptions is that they give us some idea of the impression they gave at a time when they were still relatively 'new'. Other than that I cannot think of any other usefull purpose they serve today.

Wagner's effort is in my opinion not worthy of discussion.

Rod

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

Peter
12-12-2000, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by PDG:


Did Liszt, while paying due respect to the master, have one eye on his own fame? Are there idiosyncracies in the scores which guaranteed that ONLY he, the greatest pianist in history, would ever be able to play them properly?
What is the historical value of Liszt`s efforts? Should he have left well alone, as, for all I know, Beethoven consciously did? Personally, I am very pleased that Liszt went to the trouble - I think that Beethoven would have been flattered.

I don't think Liszt can be accused of writing them merely to enhance his own fame, which by this time (1840)was already widely established - They were not really suitable material for this purpose and I am not aware of them appearing in Liszt's recitals, certainly not on a frequent basis such as his transcriptions of the William Tell overture or the Galop Chromatique.
His transcriptions of the B symphonies are on an altogether higher plane than his opera transcriptions and I think they deserve to be more widely known .
Possibly Beethoven didn't transcribe them because he felt the Fortepiano couldn't match the power of the orchestra - No problem with a modern pianoforte though !

------------------
'Man know thyself'

Rod
12-12-2000, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Peter:

Possibly Beethoven didn't transcribe them because he felt the Fortepiano couldn't match the power of the orchestra - No problem with a modern pianoforte though !


I suggest it more likely that B did not have the inclination (ie the media change was too unsuitable, regardless of the nature of the fp), and/or the financial motivation (which may have been irrelevant anyway in this case).

Rod


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

Peter
12-12-2000, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Rod:
I suggest it more likely that B did not have the inclination (ie the media change was too unsuitable, regardless of the nature of the fp), and/or the financial motivation (which may have been irrelevant anyway in this case).




I knew you'd respond to the bait Rod ! - Seriously though, I don't think the Symphonies would achieve the same power on the Fortepiano, nor do I think the media change is unsuitable - Most Orchestral works of the 19th century can very well be transcribed for piano, especially if done as superbly as Liszt's arrangement - the only problem is finding an artist capable of playing them! Some composers actually sketched their works for piano duet and orchestrated them later.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

Rod
12-12-2000, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Peter:
I knew you'd respond to the bait Rod ! - Seriously though, I don't think the Symphonies would achieve the same power on the Fortepiano, nor do I think the media change is unsuitable - Most Orchestral works of the 19th century can very well be transcribed for piano, especially if done as superbly as Liszt's arrangement - the only problem is finding an artist capable of playing them! Some composers actually sketched their works for piano duet and orchestrated them later.


I knew you knew. Do not some of B own sonatas, written for the same fp's have a 'symphonic' power? I know that B himself used the piano whilst sketching orchestral pieces, but this is just a matter of convenience. Frankly if I want to hear these Beethoven symphonies, I believe (and call me Mr Crazy if you will) B's own efforts are at least as good as Mr L's, maybe even better!

Rod

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

PDG
12-12-2000, 03:44 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
[B] I don't think Liszt can be accused of writing them merely to enhance his own fame, which by this time (1840)was already widely established - They were not really suitable material for this purpose and I am not aware of them appearing in Liszt's recitals,.....>>

By `his own fame`, I meant in the Wagnerian sense of trying to forever have his name mentioned in the same breath as Beethoven`s. If Liszt never performed these works, and no one else was capable, then why else did he write them?

Also, I think that Rod is correct insofar as the symphonic power of certain sonatas, esp. op. 57, is concerned. I am much more comfortable with `reducing` the form, in this case from symphonic to solo sonata, than I am with increasing it as, for example, Bernstein did by orchestrating string quartet, op. 135.

Peter
12-12-2000, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
Also, I think that Rod is correct insofar as the symphonic power of certain sonatas, esp. op. 57, is concerned. I am much more comfortable with `reducing` the form, in this case from symphonic to solo sonata, than I am with increasing it as, for example, Bernstein did by orchestrating string quartet, op. 135.

I'd say Op.106 as well is pretty Symphonic - though paradoxically I don't think the orchestral version works as well as the piano - probably because B didn't do it !
I'm also more comfortable with transcribing for solo piano than increasing to larger forces.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

chrisg
12-14-2000, 01:11 AM
One of the great regrets of my life to date is that I have not heard any of the Beethoven nine as transcibed by Liszt. Not one. I have heard amazing things about the piano versions and I intend to get a CD with any of them ASAP.

Serge,

I suggest the recordings by Cyprien Katsaris on Teldec. They can be tough to find, but if you'd like to try them I'd be happy to send you some CDRs. E-mail me if interested.

So, having not heard them, I can offer no insight into Liszt's interpretation. I can, though, say that Liszt was a virtuoso first and composer second.

Liszt would have disagreed. He was a great composer whose music lives on, as well as the greatest virtuoso of his day.

I'm quite certain his transcriptions, if they are as complex as everyone says,were half meant as laudation of Ludwig and half as proof to the world that Liszt was the preeminent pianist of his generation (or century or millennium). The works I have heard of Liszt are all dizzyingly flashy-- enjoyable, but of relatively little substance, as far as I see.

Plenty of Liszt is just as you say, but much of it is so much more. His opera transcriptions, in the right hands, have to be heard to be believed - blatant showmanship of the best kind. To Liszt, Beethoven was the master, and his transcriptions of the symphonies are a homage. They are amazingly faithful to the spirit of the originals, with none of the empty (but fun) virtuoso flashiness you've heard in Liszt's music. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of pianistic fireworks in these transcriptions, but it's always in the service of the music, never empty.

PDG
12-14-2000, 10:01 PM
Hi, chrisg,

Is the Teldec set unhindered by studio editing? - I`d love to hear such a cycle.

I agree that Liszt was a great composer; the trouble is, he was AN EVEN BETTER pianist. The mere fact of him being so gifted makes it all the more remarkable that he should idolize anyone; yet he did.....Beethoven.

Peter
12-15-2000, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by PDG:
Hi, chrisg,

Is the Teldec set unhindered by studio editing? - I`d love to hear such a cycle.

I agree that Liszt was a great composer; the trouble is, he was AN EVEN BETTER pianist. The mere fact of him being so gifted makes it all the more remarkable that he should idolize anyone; yet he did.....Beethoven.

He idolised Beethoven because he knew him to be a far superior composer !
Liszt is a very inconsistent composer, with much of his music (particularly the earlier works) being flawed by the desire simply to make something as difficult as possible to play - an example is 'La Campanella' which exists in more than one version - the one played today is child's play compared to the other versions !
His greatest work by far for me is the Totentanz followed by the Sonata - neither of which would I mention in the same breath as a Beethoven Symphony,Concerto,Sonata or Quartet.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

Serge
12-15-2000, 05:34 PM
Well, that's the way we need to remember Liszt. He spent most of his early career as a virtuoso who transcibed others' works in piano reductions for his concerts. Not till later, it seems, did he try his hand at composing.

I remember reading somewhere on the net about L.'s issues with reducing the 9th/4th mov't to piano and two hands. Said something like it couldn't truly be done because all the different aspects of the mov't could not possibly be maintained. I imagine, though, that L. gave it his best shot anyway.

chrisg
12-16-2000, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by PDG:
Hi, chrisg,

Is the Teldec set unhindered by studio editing? - I`d love to hear such a cycle.

I agree that Liszt was a great composer; the trouble is, he was AN EVEN BETTER pianist. The mere fact of him being so gifted makes it all the more remarkable that he should idolize anyone; yet he did.....Beethoven.

PDG,

I can't really answer your question. I will say that what strikes me about the Katsaris recordings is that they have a spontaneous feel about them, and a real sense of enjoyment in the music. I think I know what you mean about "studio editing", which seems to produce note perfect but somehow sterile performances.

Who are the pianists in the recordings you have now?

Liszt the composer vs. Liszt the virtuoso is a bit of a moot point. Unfortunately, we will never hear him performing, but his compositions for the piano place him without a doubt among the greats. He was a great musician, and universally recognized as such by an incredible lineup of talented contemporaries. Yes, he played in concert to the impress his audience as a showman, but B's works were always part of his repetoire. He was great enough to recognize the best, and influencial enough to promote Beethoven's music as such even during the height of the Romantic movement. As much as anyone in his time, Liszt insured that Beethoven didn't go out of fashion.

cg

PDG
12-16-2000, 07:20 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by chrisg:
[B] PDG,
I can't really answer your question. I will say that what strikes me about the Katsaris recordings is that they have a spontaneous feel about them, and a real sense of enjoyment in the music. I think I know what you mean about "studio editing", which seems to produce note perfect but somehow sterile performances.
Who are the pianists in the recordings you have now?>>

Chris,

By studio editing, I mean where certain parts of the recording overlap, making two or more attempts at getting a passage right sound like it was achieved in one; cheating, in other words!

My recordings are by Badura-Skoda (no.5), Glenn Gould (no.6), Konstantin Scherbakov (no.2) & nos.7 & 8 on an unmarked cd copy (!).

I always compare Liszt with Chopin in that although hugely different in style, each composed music which best suited his unique approach to playing; and each man hugely admired the other.

P.S. Have you seen Ken Russell`s OTT biopic, `Lisztomania!`? - I`ll bet our resident film buff Michael has a copy - It`s a hoot!

Mako
01-18-2001, 08:51 AM
PDG,

Why the stress about editing? I know of no recording (including live performances) in the past 50 or so years that hasn't been edited. The technology is there, why not use it? Schnabel's recordings contain .."handfuls of wrong notes.." as mentioned on another post on this site (re:-gest performances of B's 32 Sonatas) because in his day, recordings were done onto wire. In the 1950's they went to wax, and then in the late '50's onto tape. Before tape, you could not hear the recording until it had been pressed onto vinyl. They had to simply remember and guess which performance was the best to be produced for release. Often the first time an artist would hear the recording was when it was played on the radio.
Before the age of digital editing came in, analogue (i.e. tape) recordings were edited with a razor blade and sticky tape (in fact we still do it today!) It's not cheating, just a fact of life! http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Mako (edited 01-18-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Mako (edited 01-18-2001).]

PDG
01-18-2001, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Mako:
PDG,
Why the stress about editing? I know of no recording (including live performances) in the past 50 or so years that hasn't been edited. The technology is there, why not use it? Schnabel's recordings contain .."handfuls of wrong notes.." as mentioned on another post on this site (re:-gest performances of B's 32 Sonatas) because in his day, recordings were done onto wire. In the 1950's they went to wax, and then in the late '50's onto tape. Before tape, you could not hear the recording until it had been pressed onto vinyl. They had to simply remember and guess which performance was the best to be produced for release. Often the first time an artist would hear the recording was when it was played on the radio.
Before the age of digital editing came in, analogue (i.e. tape) recordings were edited with a razor blade and sticky tape (in fact we still do it today!) It's not cheating, just a fact of life! http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif
[This message has been edited by Mako (edited 01-18-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Mako (edited 01-18-2001).]

Mako,

I do not accept that all piano recordings in the last 50 years have been edited!! Maybe you thought I was referring to pauses in between movements(?), but I was referring to the actual movements themselves. I have a keen ear for studio juxtaposition - great word, I`ll say it again - juxtaposition, & the only time I`ve heard it is in Liszt`s transcriptions. If you think about it, this cheating, for that is what it is, is almost impossible to get away with on piano recordings anyway, due to flurries of notes, tempo & sustain - any join in the recording would be obvious.

Aside from all of this, virtually any concert-giving pianist, worthy of the name, is more than capable of delivering any of Beethoven`s sonatas, note perfect; it may only be in tempo, mis-pedalling or feeling where they let themselves down, yet it is only in note-accuracy where editing would serve any purpose.

PS. Our man Henman to beat your man Rafter in Round 4. Waddya say to that??!! http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/wink.gif

Peter
01-19-2001, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by PDG:
it may only be in tempo, mis-pedalling or feeling where they let themselves down, yet it is only in note-accuracy where editing would serve any purpose.

)

I disagree - a note perfect phrase can always be reshaped, a little more rubato, slightly more accent, different balance of sound, greater crescendo etc....... I'm sure this is what the main purpose of editing is anyway , not to correct wrong notes, which must be quite uncommon these days.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

Mako
01-19-2001, 08:31 AM
PDG,

Can't have a very keen ear if that's the only example you've picked up http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif Peter is right, editing isn't there to just correct wrong notes, but it is a main tool for achieving the "perfect performance" in this day of so called 'experts' claiming to be better than anyone else out there ( even without being forced to prove it in performance themselves!) and criticising every note they hear. You would be very surprised to see just how good the digital editing can be in the right hands, and stunned to see how much editing really goes on behind closed doors.

Oops almost forgot!! Live performers have the advantage that once the moments is passed, it's gone forever. In a studio recording, they are under a microscope and everything can be magnified a thousand times and replayed over and over and over again. Even live recordings can be doctored into the amazing performance the artist wanted it to be.

And on the Henman Vs. Rafter clash? May the best man win and send the other packing his bags for the long haul back to England! :P

[This message has been edited by Mako (edited 01-19-2001).]

PDG
01-19-2001, 10:06 PM
Peter & Mako,
Either I`m incredibly naive, or you are both losing it big time!
If one takes those 10 astounding G major chords whioh lead to the A flat fugue of op. 110 as an example, one can clearly hear that, in no recording which I`ve heard anyway, no editing has taken place, for no pianist plays it quite right(!). And if they ever did, then I would surely have my suspicions aroused. This is because music ain`t an exact science!
The best recordings of Beethoven`s sonatas are those done in one "take" by those prepared to let the honesty of their craft show (eg. Bernard Roberts) before any manufactured, studio incarnations rear their ugly heads.

Edited bit:

Mako, nothing which goes on in a recording studio would either surprise or stun me; I spend half my life in recording studios. Give me an honest "record me in one" performer above an egocentric "I must appear perfect" artist, any day of the week.

[This message has been edited by PDG (edited 01-19-2001).]

Rod
01-20-2001, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by PDG:
Peter & Mako,
Either I`m incredibly naive, or you are both losing it big time!
If one takes those 10 astounding G major chords whioh lead to the A flat fugue of op. 110 as an example, one can clearly hear that, in no recording which I`ve heard anyway, no editing has taken place, for no pianist plays it quite right(!). And if they ever did, then I would surely have my suspicions aroused. This is because music ain`t an exact science!
The best recordings of Beethoven`s sonatas are those done in one "take" by those prepared to let the honesty of their craft show (eg. Bernard Roberts) before any manufactured, studio incarnations rear their ugly heads.


The chords you mention can never be played effectively on a modern piano, hence the difficulty performers have in playing them. But I agree with your point about Roberts. A greater problem for me is no so much the editing but the variable recording levels or accoustics used for different movements of a single work. In some recordings I have this is quite marked and I have to continually adjust the volume to compensate.

Rod


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

chrisg
01-20-2001, 02:42 PM
The best recordings of Beethoven`s sonatas are those done in one "take" by those prepared to let the honesty of their craft show (eg. Bernard Roberts) before any manufactured, studio incarnations rear their ugly heads.

PDG,

I agree with the first half of your statement, but think you can do a lot better than Roberts. I find his entire set definitively "safe", never bad but never special. For endlessly imaginative, spontaneous, on the edge, fearless Beethoven, try Sviatoslav Richter. Most of his recordings are live, and his studio versions feel live. You can take the fingers for granted, but what impresses me most about his playing is that he creates a feeling of interpreting on the fly. He can make a piano sing, and takes every risk in the book.

Chris

PDG
01-20-2001, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by chrisg:
The best recordings of Beethoven`s sonatas are those done in one "take" by those prepared to let the honesty of their craft show (eg. Bernard Roberts) before any manufactured, studio incarnations rear their ugly heads.
PDG,
I agree with the first half of your statement, but think you can do a lot better than Roberts. I find his entire set definitively "safe", never bad but never special. For endlessly imaginative, spontaneous, on the edge, fearless Beethoven, try Sviatoslav Richter. Most of his recordings are live, and his studio versions feel live. You can take the fingers for granted, but what impresses me most about his playing is that he creates a feeling of interpreting on the fly. He can make a piano sing, and takes every risk in the book.
Chris

Chris, I agree that Richter was special. My nodding the wink at Bernard Roberts is based on my admiring the "honesty" of his playing of the Beethoven sonatas. Honesty, in music, is not easy to pigeonhole, but I`m always happy to use Roberts as an example of my interpretation of that word. I don`t like fussy playing, or over-interpretiveness, when it`s not needed.

Since it was our earlier thread exchange which lead me to talking about studio editing, perhaps I could try & clarify what I meant. If I again use the 10 chord G major passage prior to the A flat fugue of op.110 as an example, each successive chord is supposed to increase in intensity & weight. Let`s say that a pianist has made a recording of the sonata with which he is satisfied, except that these chords don`t quite convey their intended drama. It is possible for him to re-record the end of the work, starting from the G major passage, & for his two attempts to be spliced together. To my ears, when this is done, the join is always obvious. I am not talking about tweaking eq or reverb here & there - I am referring to two or more attempts being made at producing one piece of music. And this practice should be outlawed, by golly!!

Mako
01-21-2001, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
Let`s say that a pianist has made a recording of the sonata with which he is satisfied, except that these chords don`t quite convey their intended drama. It is possible for him to re-record the end of the work, starting from the G major passage, & for his two attempts to be spliced together. To my ears, when this is done, the join is always obvious. I am not talking about tweaking eq or reverb here & there - I am referring to two or more attempts being made at producing one piece of music. And this practice should be outlawed, by golly!![/B]

PDG,

You are seriously having yourself on if you think you can pick out every edit in a piece of music. Granted there are unfortunately some bad ones out there, but I think you are being one of these score following, nit picking 'authorities' who couldn't really enjoy a recording if they tried, only finding satisfaction when thinking he has found a blemish of one type or other. You are exactly the type of person who I mentioned in my earlier post. Chill out, get off your high horse, and unless you can produce something better, leave them alone.

By the way, your Henman is going home tomorrow, what do you think about that! http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif

PDG
01-21-2001, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Mako:
PDG,
You are seriously having yourself on if you think you can pick out every edit in a piece of music. Granted there are unfortunately some bad ones out there, but I think you are being one of these score following, nit picking 'authorities' who couldn't really enjoy a recording if they tried, only finding satisfaction when thinking he has found a blemish of one type or other. You are exactly the type of person who I mentioned in my earlier post. Chill out, get off your high horse, and unless you can produce something better, leave them alone.
By the way, your Henman is going home tomorrow, what do you think about that! http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif


Sir, you offend me. I don`t know how old you are (I`d guess very young), & maybe you`re just trying to make an impression with this newly-discovered site of yours, but I am not a "nit-picker" (note the hyphen); neither do I enjoy "flawed" music, nor feel the need to either "chill out" or get off my non-existent "high horse". Please make no assumptions of me, & I`ll make none of you, okay? In other words, check your views before you post them; we`ll get along just fine as long as it doesn`t get personal.

chrisg
01-21-2001, 10:03 PM
PDG,

We seem to have taken a wrong turn here. Getting back on topic, the example you give of "honesty" in Roberts' Beethoven playing is the kind of thing that just wouldn't register with me. If I could read a score, and actually play the piano, I might feel otherwise. As it is, you're listening on a different level, but I do wonder if your admiration for the way he sticks to the scores with minimal studio editing translates to full enjoyment. When you really want to just kick back and listen to a Beethoven sonata for your own pleasure, whose do you reach for?

cg

Rod
01-22-2001, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by chrisg:
PDG,

We seem to have taken a wrong turn here. Getting back on topic, the example you give of "honesty" in Roberts' Beethoven playing is the kind of thing that just wouldn't register with me. If I could read a score, and actually play the piano, I might feel otherwise. As it is, you're listening on a different level, but I do wonder if your admiration for the way he sticks to the scores with minimal studio editing translates to full enjoyment. When you really want to just kick back and listen to a Beethoven sonata for your own pleasure, whose do you reach for?

cg

With Roberts it is the absence of any personal idiosyncrasies (ie excentricities in interpretation) that is refreshing, his 'Appassionata' on Nimbus is as good as anyones on the pf. Whereas with Richter I've have got on occasion the impression he was trying to 'show-off' at the expence of the music, just my impression though. Frankly I don't care who is playing as long as they get it right - for me they wouldn't even have to put the players name on the disk. You will never have heard of most of the fp players in my collection!

Rod

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

PDG
01-22-2001, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Rod:
With Roberts it is the absence of any personal idiosyncrasies (ie excentricities in interpretation) that is refreshing, his 'Appassionata' on Nimbus is as good as anyones on the pf. Whereas with Richter I've have got on occasion the impression he was trying to 'show-off' at the expence of the music, just my impression though. Frankly I don't care who is playing as long as they get it right - for me they wouldn't even have to put the players name on the disk. You will never have heard of most of the fp players in my collection!
Rod


Rod,

You have, effectively, answered Chris for me. I agree with you, 100%.

Rod
01-23-2001, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
Rod,

You have, effectively, answered Chris for me. I agree with you, 100%.

I find myself in an unusual situation! At one time or another I have had all of Roberts Beethoven music on Nimbus. Some person lucky enough to know me in person now posseses my complete B sonatas by him, but I have kept his Diabelli Variations and op126 as they are as much to my taste as you can get on the pf.

Rod

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin