Originally posted by CallMePaul
View Post
BaL 29.12.18 - Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto no. 2 in C minor Op. 18
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by pastoralguy View PostOddly enough, I came across the original Gramophone review from the early 60's last night. It was pretty sniffy although no more so than the other disc in the review which was Entremont with Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic.[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by pastoralguy View PostSorry, the Joyce Hatto in message 29. I should have quoted it.
Richter at one passage was referred to unbeatable except for the muddy orchestral sound - did not sound that bad to me .
The performance I wanted to buy after that was the Byron Janis.
Comment
-
-
I greatly enjoyed this BaL, MF-W's total omission of any mention of my favoured Wild/Horenstein notwithstanding. I don't feel any need to add to my collection (Rach, Wild, & Dani), and the chosen recording fell (for me) at the very last fence by the mega-schmaltz of the presentation of the final bars. Good to follow the reviewer's enthusiasm and impressive commentary, and to hear so generous a selection of excerpts.[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
A good BAL, I thought, although rather biased towards the younger players. I was pleased to see that Lugansky had a honourable mention as I already have it. And I thought she was spot on about what was right about Lugansky, and what was 'wrong'. Such beauty in the slow movement, such a headlong rush in the third movement. I thought she illustrated well how the last movement needn't be so headlong with Andsnes. And the BPO were sounding magnificent! But I thought she shouldn't have limited herself to the last twenty years. If she prefers (say) Rachmaninov & Richter to the modern boys she should say so! I'm tempted by both, they sounded really exciting in the clips. I also thought Richter's orchestral sound wasn't that bad, not as muddy as she suggested, though Rachmaninov's did sound rather thin & muddy.Last edited by Mal; 29-12-18, 11:04.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Bryn View PostThough she got the pronunciation of Dorati's name wrong.
Edit: Ah, you've edited your post to focus on stress-distribution. I've always put the stress on the A. Where should it be?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by CallMePaul View PostI suspect that, on past form, Marina F-W may ignore it in favour of elderly recordings (I'm thinking of her BAL on Tchaikovsky's Pathétique a couple of years ago).Originally posted by Mal View PostA good BAL, I thought, although rather biased towards the younger players. ... But I thought she shouldn't have limited herself to the last twenty years. If she prefers (say) Rachmaninov & Richter to the modern boys she should say so![FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
Comment