BaL 21.11.15 - Bartok: Piano Concerto no. 2

[gurnemanz]

I have been able to find but 'two' reviews of this disc, both identical. One is on amazon.co.uk and signed JohnW, the other on MusicWeb and signed John Whitmore. Neither deals with the provenance of the transfer. I too would warn caveat emptor. A "Used - Very Good" copy of the DG Originals CD is cheaper anyway.

Arkiv quote a review from Fanfare. My Anda/Fricsay LP, with a black and white photo of the artists and Grand Prix du Disque on the cover, was a very early purchase and a big favourite. It only had PC 2 and 3 and I snapped up the CD as soon as it appeared in the 90s. I probably will resist getting another version, but fair enough for Harriet to recommend a modern recording while acknowledging the undisputed classic status of Anda.

[Bryn]

Regarding the late '50s DG Anda/Fricsay recordings of Bartok's music for piano and orchestra, the early Rhapsody included in the original vinyl release seems only to be available as downloads or in the out of catalogue "géza anda: troubadour of the piano" 5 CD set.

My #45 was intended to refer specifically to the Alto release.

[makropulos]

Regarding the late '50s DG Anda/Fricsay recordings of Bartok's music for piano and orchestra, the early Rhapsody included in the original vinyl release seems only to be available as downloads or in the out of catalogue "géza anda: troubadour of the piano" 5 CD set.

My #45 was intended to refer specifically to the Alto release.

It's also in Vol. 1 (the first box) of the complete DG Fricsay recordings.

[soileduk]

Thanks for the opinions everyone. At least I know I've got the correct recording. The DG disc is cheap enough to be the first choice, however, I do believe that Alto records are ethically sound enough to only issue duly licensed recordings. I have noticed, in the past, duplicate issues.

[Bryn]

Thanks for the opinions everyone. At least I know I've got the correct recording. The DG disc is cheap enough to be the first choice, however, I do believe that Alto records are ethically sound enough to only issue duly licensed recordings. I have noticed, in the past, duplicate issues.

Since the copyright on the latest published of those recordings (Number 1) does not run out until some time in 2031, it does indeed seem likely that Alto had properly licenced them. However, they do not seem to cite who made the transfers, or when they were made. That does seem a little remiss.

[frankwm]

Since the copyright on the latest published of those recordings (Number 1) does not run out until some time in 2021, it does indeed seem likely that Alto had properly licenced them. However, they do not seem to cite who made the transfers, or when they were made. That does seem a little remiss.

That is of course incorrect.
The Gramophone review of #1/Rhapsody was January 1962: that issue/the German release could well be late '61); thus falls within the old 50-year rule (publication to end-1962).

'Interestingly', some purveyors are taking the actual recording-date as their reference (see: Horenstein from Mr.P) despite publication-date (1963) still being copyright-protected because of the recent 70-year amendment.

[Bryn]

That is of course incorrect.
The Gramophone review of #1/Rhapsody was January 1962: that issue/the German release could well be late '61); thus falls within the old 50-year rule (publication to end-1962).

'Interestingly', some purveyors are taking the actual recording-date as their reference (see: Horenstein from Mr.P) despite publication-date (1963) still being copyright-protected because of the recent 70-year amendment.

from https://www.gov.uk/government/public...und-recordings

2. How long copyright in sound recordings lasts

The length of term of copyright in a sound recording depends on whether or not it has been published (released) or has been communicated to the public (for example, played on the radio)

if a recording is not published or communicated to the public, copyright lasts for 50 years from when the recording was made
if a recording is published within 50 years of when it was made, copyright lasts for 70 years from the year it was first published
if a recording is not published within 50 years of when it was made, but it is communicated to the public, copyright lasts for 70 years from the year it was first communicated to the public
if a recording is first communicated to the public within 50 years of when it was made and is then published at a later date (but within 70 years of its first communication to the public), copyright lasts for 70 years from the year it was first published

[frankwm]

My statement is correct.
The 70-years rule was not retro-active.
Copyright does not apply in that instance.

[Bryn]

My statement is correct.
The 70-years rule was not retro-active.
Copyright does not apply in that instance.

Ah, so because the recordings in question entered the Public Domain prior to November 1, 2013 they would not have needed to be licenced and so may well simply be tidied up vinyl transfers. All the more reason to get one of the DG versions.

[frankwm]

Correct: you can also obtain a 'tidied-up' (cheapy DGG Privilege 2LP dub) of #1 from 'the above sauce'.

[silvestrione]

Since I learnt the piece from the Richter/Maazel/Orchestre de Paris recording, and it was the only one I had over many years (I now have the Pollini and the Anda), it still sounds 'right' to me! Anda seems pell-mell and over excited, and Pollini less poetic than Richter.

Richter gives a wonderful account of the solo part. The way he matches piano sonorities to the brass in the first movement is astonishing. You don't forget the magic of the small number of quieter moments in that movement, too. Richter is completely at home in the idiom, rendering the crunchy harmonies memorably. The slow movement is slow, certainly, but mesmeric. In my view the orchestra give a good account of themselves. In this version, it's the slow movement of the 'Emperor' concerto you think of, not Beethoven's fourth.

[Bryn]

A minor niggle re. disguised potential nepotism. Harriet Smith referred to the Bavouzet disc having being a fine Chandos recording. Not really. Sure, one of the co-producers was Brian Pidgeon who is free-lance but works principally with/for Chandos. However, his co-producer was Mike George and the recording engineer was Steohen Rinker. Both are very much BBC personnel. The recording venue was Studio 7, New Broadcasting House, Manchester. So, it was really, as the Radio 3 logo on the booklet cover indicates, a BBC Radio 3 recording. Still, its merits were by no means overstated, to my ears.

[Nick Armstrong]

Maybe she caught me in a particularly good mood, but I found this one of the very best BaLs ever.

Good for you ferns. I have a slight personal problem with HS's style of delivery (I have to suppress the sense of a staid aunt trying to seem spontaneous and 'down with the kids' - "ouch"... "rather a bangfest" ) ... but it is doubtless my problem, not hers, and I have no quarrel with the substance.

It did strike me that pretty much all of her shortlist were in the 'excellent' class: none sounded to fall short of a very high standard.

As for the piece - it's one I'd hear live with interest, but not one I'd listen to at home much. I have the Anda/Fricsay (the single disc DG Originals issue) and the Schiff/Fischer recordings of all 3 concertos. Have I listened to them much? No. Do I want another? No. Especially as the Anda/Fricsay came across on this BAL with a special vividness that held my attention at least as much if not more than the 'winner'.

[Lento]

Masterly review, I thought, most enjoyable. The John Ogdon performance mentioned earlier is, I believe, available to stream on Apple Music.

[Bryn]

Masterly review, I thought, most enjoyable. The John Ogdon performance mentioned earlier is, I believe, available to stream on Apple Music.

By the way, Ogdon and Sargent also recorded the 1st Concerto. It was first released in the EMI Ogdon 70th Anniversary 4 disc set.