BaL 28.05.16 - Schumann: Fantasie in C, Op17

[richardfinegold]

Kempf or Kempff? Didn't know the former had recorded it. I have the latter's mono DG recording, probably similar in conception to the stereo. I recall there is/are live versions on Orfeo/BBC?

Double for, sorry

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Strange to see that there's been no comment on this during/after broadcast. Mr Hamilton's insights clearly haven't set the Forum alight....

I highlighted the winner hours ago. What more do you want?

[visualnickmos]

I highlighted the winner hours ago. What more do you want?

Put like that, what else can one add?

[visualnickmos]

Strange to see that there's been no comment on this during/after broadcast. Mr Hamilton's insights clearly haven't set the Forum alight....

Not exactly the most engaging of presenters...

[Beef Oven!]

Going to listen on eyeplayer tonight. I’m cool with my Brendel recording, so I don’t think I’ll be in the market for any more.

[verismissimo]

... Mr Hamilton's insights clearly haven't set the Forum alight....

I thought the Prof was in top form.

Like LMP, for me Paul Lewis sounded good but not fire-lighting. I like his work greatly in Beethoven and Schubert...

[DracoM]

Well, I'm not a Schumann fan at all at all, BUT as a piece of judicious broadcasting, he made me listen throughout.

[BBMmk2]

I haven't any recordings of Paul Lewis! This be a great place to start, imo. But I do rather like Murray Perhahia, so I get his as well!

[Pulcinella]

One of those odd coincidences that happens:

I'm currently reading Hanya Yanagihara's A Little Life, one of last year's Man Booker Prize shortlist.
I've just reached page 531 and what do I find.......

....behind him, he can hear Jude sit down and begin playing something on the piano---Schumann, he recognizes, Fantasy in C: a pretty vigorous number for someone who's so wan and helpless, he thinks sourly---and realizes he has to get out of the apartment.

I wonder how often it features in the text of a novel!

[Roslynmuse]

It's a stunning piece. Does anyone know if Peter Frankl's complete Schumann (Vox, 4/5 issued on Turnabout LPs late 70s and early 80s) has made it onto CD or download? It was through his recording I got to know the piece first.

Some years ago I went to a recital of Beethoven sonatas by Andras Schiff and he played the 3rd movement as his encore - the highlight of the concert for me.

Like fgh, the relative objectivity of Pollini's playing appeals rather than repels; I have never, on the other hand, got on with either Perahia or Paul Lewis's playing - c'est la vie!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It's a stunning piece. Does anyone know if Peter Frankl's complete Schumann (Vox, 4/5 issued on Turnabout LPs late 70s and early 80s) has made it onto CD or download? It was through his recording I got to know the piece first.

Download only:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003G23I26/181-9035284-2397506

I think that Frankl recorded it just the once, in which case you might be interested in a cheaper version - not sure about the sound quality in this version, though:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Schumann-Fantaisie-Humoreske-Mono-Version/dp/B0164EMIF0

[silvestrione]

I don't think he mentioned Curzon: I'd just like to recommend his performance. Passionate in the first movement, and a poetic coda that wil take your breath away. Last movement too, he's in his element. A pity the middle movement is just a little tame and careful.

[Nick Armstrong]

Not exactly the most engaging of presenters...

I'd have to agree - although I wouldn't quarrel with the substance of what he said, as far as it went. But it was rather ... perfunctory, I found. The entire thing lasted barely 37 minutes (and yet there was an apology for not having time to include certain leading performers... Uchida, Curzon... ). Then again (subjectively and totally unfairly) I do find his voice has an effect on my ears akin to a hacksaw cutting tin, so perhaps less is more... ).

While I'm at it, I repeat: BRING BACK STEPHEN PLAISTOW!

Haefliger and Argerich sounded very good in their different ways, as did Lewis, on this showing (I'm also not a Lewis fan, generally); and as for Pollini (I am a fan, generally), the recording quality sounded odd and artificial in this company - though I own it and hadn't previously noticed that. Horowitz was spell-binding (I also liked being able to hear the New York cabs hooting in the background outside Carnegie Hall!); and I smiled at the anecdote from I forget who (a vintage virtuoso), getting annoyed at hearing the difficult bits played perfectly and recommending a few errors so the audience know how difficult the piece is

I won't invest in Lewis unquestioningly; but this BAL will get me to investigate further - esp Haefliger, Argerich and Curzon.


.


And this was another BAL where neither the reviewer nor AMcG told us who was performing the introductory extract

[waldo]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]I'd have to agree - although I wouldn't quarrel with the substance of what he said, as far as it went. But it was rather ... perfunctory, I found.........

Perfunctory is about right. It was one of those BAL where you learn almost nothing about the piece. It was just one excerpt after the next, without any obvious sense of order. This one he quite liked, that one he didn't etc......... The jumping around was particularly annoying. One moment, we were listening to the third movement, the next we were back at the first again. It would have been nice to have a more coherent approach, so the excerpts at least illustrated something other than the particular tastes of the presenter. What I had hoped for - as someone who loves this piece, but has read practically nothing about it - would be some understanding of the way each movement relates to the others (if at all), and how a performer might try and balance each element. He also kept using references that he hadn't explained (unless I missed it): the "legends" section, for instance. Was this actually explained? Absolutely nothing at all was said about the final movement's form - nothing. We just had excerpts.

As for Paul Lewis - no thanks. I have been down that road quite a few times and always wonder what the fuss is about. Listening on Spotify to this piece, it is just more of the same: if you haven't taken to Lewis, you won't take to this reading, either. Nothing really wrong with it, but it doesn't hold a candle to the great performances. (Also the same old acoustic, which marred Lewis's Beethoven set - very close and very resonant, wearying for more than a few minutes.)

Finally, I was particularly annoyed by his characterisation of Pollini as "frenetic" and the fact that he placed him in the same approach/tradition as Argerich. It made me wonder if he has actually heard these recordings all the way through. Now Argerich is frenetic: she pulls the piece all over the place, as if playing a Chopin ballade. Not my cup of tea, but I can see there is merit in a white-hot, hyper-romantic approach. (Richter is another pulling it all over the place performer.......) Pollini is nothing like this, of course. He plays the piece much as he plays late Beethoven, bringing out the long-term structural shifts and keeping the tempo more or less steady. For me, it is the ultimate recording - easily among the greatest and most astonishing recordings of all time. One he begins, you somehow feel the rest is inevitable. It doesn't need heavy doses of rubato or gratuitous flourishes to keep your attention.

[Jonathan]

I found the programme a bit bitty too - too much jumping from the first to the third movement so it was difficult to follow. Waldo, the legend section is marked in the score as "to be played with the aura of a legend". I also found the presenter slightly grating! As for recordings, I have Demus and Hamelin and I prefer the latter. I will seek out Horowitz though as the colours he generated were amazing. Pollini left me cold too and Lewis seemed "dry" to my ears. I'll also keep an ear open for Wilde. I am glad the early version was mentioned as well, didn't know Schiff had recorded it.