BaL 20.04.19/11.01.20 - Schumann: Piano Concerto in A minor

[Dave2002]

Quite so, and quite irrelevant to the issue at hand.

It’s not totally irrelevant as I am sure she has studied the work in question. I agree that there are other pianists who are generally considered better, and certainly better able to withstand the rigours of touring etc. I just feel that some round here think that if a reviewer comes up with a different conclusion from their own, that is a bad thing. I probably didn’t agree with the conclusions today either, and perhaps there wasn’t a wide enough field discussed, but some of the ideas were interesting. What do you want in a BAL? It’s nearly always easier to criticise than be constructive,

[Barbirollians]

But, by that criterion, I wouldn't be able to criticise any of the available versions.

She may be able to play the work better than any of us here, but that doesn't mean that her dismissals of pianists who can play it "orders of magnitude better than [she] can" are valid, against which we have no right to protest.

Exactly

I thought her criticism of Argerich -though of course we were not told which of Argerich’s recordings it was - bordered on suggesting her octaves were not very ladylike . Parham chose a recording very similar to her playing style from what I have heard of her playing and I agree with edashtav about Dorati’s accompaniment .

Also what was the point in doing the BAL of this work again if recordings from the years since it was last done were to be ignored ?

[Bryn]

Exactly

I thought her criticism of Argerich -though of course we were not told which of Argerich’s recordings it was - bordered on suggesting her octaves were not very ladylike . Parham chose a recording very similar to her playing style from what I have heard of her playing and I agree with edashtav about Dorati’s accompaniment .

Also what was the point in doing the BAL of this work again if recordings from the years since it was last done were to be ignored ?

I have the original 1987 double CD release of the Parham/BBCCO/Wordsworth recording, purchased mainly for what turned out to be a rather lacklustre performance of the Clara Schumann Concerto. Robert's does not fare that much better, though in that case, the main problem is the orchestral contribution, rather than the pianist's. If David Breckbill's review of the later single CD issue had been written 15 years earlier I might have avoided my disappointment:

http://www.classical-music.com/review/schumannclara-schumann-0

[gradus]

I enjoyed this BAL. Lucy knows the piece from the player's point of view and I think she understands it very well. Although Argerich is a great pianist, those chords were just too much and I think others excel her in this piece and I would be happy with any of them. I particularly liked the dancing lilting quality of the Staier and Schiff last movements.

[visualnickmos]

......I particularly liked the dancing lilting quality of the Staier and Schiff last movements.

I fully concur with you. Argerich (from the extract, was indeed, too barn-storming - she really crashed in at full-pelt)
I very much enjoyed the thoughtful quality Perahia brought, in his recording with Colin Davis. A slight pity that Radu Lupo was not given a mention.....

[LeMartinPecheur]

If so, that would be just one more demerit for her.

Thou sayest - a judgment call, which is what this game is all about.

[Dave2002]

It seemed clear the Lucy likes a fairly lilting, poetic approach to this concerto, rather than a barn storming one. Argerich sounded just too thrusting in the section mentioned, and other pianists do better (IMO) with a slightly more determined view than the final recommendation. That said, what's wrong with being given a different view on what is arguably a very familiar work. Recordings which weren't mentioned were many, but included Stephen Kovacevich and Solomon, amongst others. Lucy did however mention that there were many great performances and recordings before her short listed selection. Perhaps she should have made it clear why she didn't want to go too far back in time before the 1980s, but she wasn't disparaging about many of the performances - and indeed she said that many of them were very good. The Annie Fischer version played dates from the 1960s. She did identify what sounds like a very good HIPP version by Andreas Staier.

One comment I will make is that some aspects of Schumann's life which many of us may know already, and Lucy clearly assumed, would not perhaps make too much sense to anyone who didn't already know. Surely the BAL isn't only aimed at people who know about the composer's life, the music and recordings already. The particular point of concern was when she mentioned Eusebius - someone who did not have any background knowledge would perhaps have wondered what she was on about, and Andrew didn't really help to explain the point either.

[visualnickmos]

One comment I will make is that some aspects of Schumann's life which many of us may know already, and Lucy clearly assumed, would not perhaps make too much sense to anyone who didn't already know. Surely the BAL isn't only aimed at people who know about the composer's life, the music and recordings already. The particular point of concern was when she mentioned Eusebius - someone who did not have any background knowledge would perhaps have wondered what she was on about, and Andrew didn't really help to explain the point either.

Yes - I was one of those who didn't know what she was on about. I felt that she would have made a much better job of the BaL, had she had the stage to herself, and not shared with Monsieur MgG. It seemed that she wanted to say more (and perhaps showcase more) than she was able to. That's not to say she did a bad job - she didn't; she did a good job with her hands tied.

[Barbirollians]

It seemed clear the Lucy likes a fairly lilting, poetic approach to this concerto, rather than a barn storming one. Argerich sounded just too thrusting in the section mentioned, and other pianists do better (IMO) with a slightly more determined view than the final recommendation. That said, what's wrong with being given a different view on what is arguably a very familiar work. Recordings which weren't mentioned were many, but included Stephen Kovacevich and Solomon, amongst others. Lucy did however mention that there were many great performances and recordings before her short listed selection. Perhaps she should have made it clear why she didn't want to go too far back in time before the 1980s, but she wasn't disparaging about many of the performances - and indeed she said that many of them were very good. The Annie Fischer version played dates from the 1960s. She did identify what sounds like a very good HIPP version by Andreas Staier.

One comment I will make is that some aspects of Schumann's life which many of us may know already, and Lucy clearly assumed, would not perhaps make too much sense to anyone who didn't already know. Surely the BAL isn't only aimed at people who know about the composer's life, the music and recordings already. The particular point of concern was when she mentioned Eusebius - someone who did not have any background knowledge would perhaps have wondered what she was on about, and Andrew didn't really help to explain the point either.

I thought it was explained that Florestan and Eusebius were two sides of Schumann’s musical personality Schiff/Dorati has a rather wet winsome quality that did not from the extracts played reflect Florestan at all . Argerich on the other hand ...

[Dave2002]

I thought it was explained that Florestan and Eusebius were two sides of Schumann’s musical personality Schiff/Dorati has a rather wet winsome quality that did not from the extracts played reflect Florestan at all . Argerich on the other hand ...

I'd have to listen to the whole thing again - I thought that wasn't explained. That was something which could have been made much more of - or did I sleep through it all?

[Barbirollians]

What annoyed me about her dismissal of Argerich was all the extraordinary felicities and interest in her recordings was ignored just because Parham thought that the octaves were too assertive - all her recordings have way more personality than the Schiff to my mind .

[visualnickmos]

I'd have to listen to the whole thing again - I thought that wasn't explained. That was something which could have been made much more of - or did I sleep through it all?

It was 'explained' but in a brush-off, condescending way - like "You didn't do classics -oh dear"

Bugger Eusebius, I just want to hear a bloody good rendition of a marvelous concerto.

[sidneyfox]

Recommending a recording to someone building a collection of classical CDs (or other medium) is not the same as scientifically or systematically identifying the best recording of something. The former is easy and the latter impossible. As an older person, I've enjoyed building a library on a Saturday for many years now and I think they do a good job - especially when the didactic approach is dropped and a more conversational delivery is taken. Of course even older listeners might hanker over past glories!

[Nick Armstrong]

Yes the twofer 'chat' format seems to be part of the new schedule. A pity I think, but still some interest in hearing the extracts.

The selected Schiff plus the Perahia/Davis and Staier/Herreweghe are the ones I want to hear again.

Bugger Eusebius

I quite agree. I did wish they'd shut up.

[Master Jacques]

Recommending a recording to someone building a collection of classical CDs (or other medium) is not the same as scientifically or systematically identifying the best recording of something. The former is easy and the latter impossible. As an older person, I've enjoyed building a library on a Saturday for many years now and I think they do a good job - especially when the didactic approach is dropped and a more conversational delivery is taken. Of course even older listeners might hanker over past glories!

You address the nub of the question. Today's fashion is to valorise personal opinion above analysis, and quotidian remarks above rigorous argument. Therefore, this "twofer chat" method (involving fewer extracts, simplification of the works - as we heard with that Force of Destiny horror - and much less intense analysis of what we're hearing) fits better with what BBC management feels will 'connect' with a half-engaged audience.

The fact that this method alienates many listeners who preferred the original, quasi-objective, ethos of Building a Library is sad, but time moves on. Other listeners will prefer the relaxed, sunny and collaborative fluidity of the chat format. In a world dominated by Amazon reviews, two ill-expressed opinions are at least as good as one informed one, and will get more listener stars. I'm afraid those of us who dislike it must bite the bullet, on the grounds that 'owt is better than nowt'!