Hamelin's two Alkan Concertos.

[contrapunctus]

After listening to the first recording countless of times, I finally got the second for Christmas.

After a few go throughs, here are some observations:
1) The most glaringly obvious difference is that the new recording is much less harsh, it almost sounds muted in comparison. This could be because of Hyperion's sound board, or Hamelin may have suddenly learned to play like Gilels.

2) The Tempi are more subdued with the notes clearer.

Now, I know most people agree that the second is much better, but that is not my opinion. The second may be less grating on the ears but it can't top the first in terms of how much it gets the adrenaline pumping.

I would like to hear some other opinions on the subject if you have any.

[cygnusdei]

Sorry to go slightly off -- but anyone who has both Hamelin's recordings of Dukas sonata (one is live bootleg) please comment as well. I haven't got the Hyperion release.

[mephisto]

I do certainly prefer the new Hyperion recording if the Kancerto. IMO just as much adrenaline with much better piano and recording equiptment. I believe the first recording was done with a Yamaha, and the new with a Steinway.

As for the 2nd question:

There are certainly more than two existing recordings of Hamelin playing the Dukas sonata. I am aware of:
The obvious Hyperion recording
Duzniki Zdroj, Poland 2 August 1997
The Concertgebouw 1998
Amorina-Salen, Sollentuna, Sweden - 31 January 1998

[jakev2.0]

Frankly, Hamelin sounds NOTHING like Gilels in any conceivable way. Gilels' playing has colour and a sense of drama. There is weight behind every one of Gilels' notes and his phrasing is always coherently thought out. His playing has line, and his phrases breathe. The majority of Gilels' performances have a sense of architecture and purpose.  Hamelin is a musicologist.  Gilels is a Kung-Fu master. 

It's interesting that you mentioned Gilels though, because I think he would have been temperamentally perfect or the AlKancerto.  Alas... 

Anyway, now that that's out of my system:

Hamelin's First 39/8-12 recording

Utterly lacking in any kind of interpretative input. Colorless. Percussive. Tedious.

Hamelin's Second 39/8-12 recording

Utterly lacking in any sensible interpretative input. Full of fawning and unconvincing rubato as if he TRIED very desperately to make music, but the result is even more contrived than the last one. His touch is still pallid and the phrasing lackluster. Alkan would not be pleased.

AVOID.

[cygnusdei]

FYI the Alkan concerto (on Hyperion) is available on BMG Music. I have the Music & Arts release - I don't think I'm getting the new version any time soon.
Btw, I think the bootleg of the Dukas sonata that I have is the 1997 recording.

[hodi]

the new alkan recording by hamelin sounds like nothing more than a midi.

[contrapunctus]

I don't know about the MIDI thing but, to adress what Jakev says:
I listened to the Gibbon's recording on youtube. Everyone's comments places it way above Hamelin in terms of interpretation, BUT I don't know how that fact that Gibbons misses nearly every other note does not drastically take away from the enjoyment. I think accuracy trumps interp.

[thalbergmad]

I have spent too much money on Hamelin's CD's in the past.

Judging but what i read here, i refuse to part with any more cash for more of his note perfect but uninteresting playing.

Thal

[richard black]

that fact that Gibbons misses nearly every other note

Then it's not him at his best. He's seldom infallible technically, but he's capable of considerably better than you make out. I don't often find his Alkan entirely satisfying but there's something about it that draws me to it, nevertheless.

[tompilk]

im afraid i have to say that i find his new recording a near-perfect realisation in my opinion, at least it's how I like it to be played. Maybe you need to hear it live. the thrill is just massive. and his cds are not far from his live performance in terms of accuracy!
Perhaps some live recordings from hamelin would not go amiss, but I remember him saying that he doesn't feel he needs the live recording to get his interpretations across...
But seriously, how can you sniff at his live video of it?

[pies]

Hamelin is the new Leslie Howard

[retrouvailles]

Hamelin is the new Leslie Howard

Wrong.

[jakev2.0]

Wrong.

Agreed. There are at least a couple decent Leslie Howard recordings.

[retrouvailles]

Agreed. There are at least a couple decent Leslie Howard recordings.

Whereas Hamelin has MANY decent recordings.

[contrapunctus]

What is interpretation anyway? A little rubato there, accel. there, accentuation there. Nothing of real consequence, in my opinion.

I think "interpretation" is blown way out of proportion. What should matter in a recording is this:

1) accuracy
2) clarity of notes
3) reasonable following of composers intentions

Saying a rec is superior because the pianist used rubato in bar 147 is ridiculous.

The only exception to this that I can think of is glenn gould, but of course, he was magical and defined they way baroque should be played ( i.e. no romanticization). 

[fiasco]

Sometimes, I don't know what people are listening to.  What more could you want out of Hamelin's playing?  He isn't enough of a genius to nonchalantly miss notes in the name of musicality?  Maybe he should have a breakdown and refuse to perform for awhile, then he'd be great.  Id take his Alkan work over Gould's thousand hours of heartfelt Bach exercises anyday.

[dark5]

What is interpretation anyway? A little rubato there, accel. there, accentuation there. Nothing of real consequence, in my opinion.

I think "interpretation" is blown way out of proportion. What should matter in a recording is this:

1) accuracy
2) clarity of notes
3) reasonable following of composers intentions

Saying a rec is superior because the pianist used rubato in bar 147 is ridiculous.

The only exception to this that I can think of is glenn gould, but of course, he was magical and defined they way baroque should be played ( i.e. no romanticization). 

While I agree that lack of interpretation is usually a bad argument for a recording's quality I must admit that it makes a ton of difference in an actual performance. This is possibly due to the lack of technology in the digital sound transfer of studios or the lack of atmosphere and acoustics of a live performance but this is also why I generally prefer listening to live performances (or even recordings of) when I want a good "interpretation" with plenty of "contrast", "colour" and "emotion".

But I'll agree when I only have a studio recording I namely judge it on the above 3 points that Contrapunctus mentioned.

[pita bread]

Sometimes, I don't know what people are listening to.  What more could you want out of Hamelin's playing?

Exactly.

[counterpoint]

What is interpretation anyway? A little rubato there, accel. there, accentuation there.

Absolutely 

But then, playing through the notes in the maximum tempo without giving the audience a chance to hear all the beautiful details of the piece (which often requires a lot of "rubato" - listen to some good Cortot or Horowitz or Rubinstein recordings!) the audience will not experience what the music is about. The only thing they experience is a pianist, that plays faster than everyone else.

[richard black]

What should matter in a recording is this:

1) accuracy
2) clarity of notes
3) reasonable following of composers intentions

That's your opinion and I will defend to the death your right to hold it, etc. etc., but I profoundly disagree. I suggest that what should matter is that the recording leaves an emotional mark of some kind (well, preferably mostly pleasant, at least) on the listener. And I don't necessarily care how that's done. Quite clearly, not all recordings will succeed for all listeners, but a good one should succeed for a substantial number.

[tompilk]

now i remember why i don't come here so much. such intellectual toffery is completely out of order. everyone knows that the statements here are everyone's own opinion, but the defensiveness and aggressiveness in which these are put i find quite annoying.
A supportive atmosphere is much better. And let's not talk so subjectively as though we are being objective.
And for my non-defensive or aggressive 2 cents: I think hamelin provides the best interpretations in recorded history of nearly everything he has recorded. His Haydn is some of the best I've ever heard, and so are his brahms piano quartets. coming on the the alkan... I believe that this music must be tackled without fear, and i feel that hamelin provides a rollercoaster straight through it. You can't moan for his accuracy or because it doesn't have enough "interpretive" distortion of the music (i.e. excessive rubato)! I also think he has an unparalleled technique with a godly dexterity to go with it. I believe it is his accuracy that's make people feel there's no "interpretation" in it - whatever that may mean! Come on, you can't bash an extremely successful concert artist! If he wants to play that way, that is the way he likes it to sound. In fact, I believe he has surpassed most other concert artists because he listens to the sound he makes so well. And if he doesn't flail his arms enough, I think there's always the "conservatory" clone LL...

My main point: in whatever way he plays something there are always going to be disagreements - noone can please everyone! I reckon there are 4 groups of people:

1. Those who listen to it with closed minds because they think they don't like hamelin
2. Those who listen to it and truly dislike the way he plays it (although this can change)
3. Those who are impartial and recognise it as an excellent recording but it doesn't interest them too much (after all, people are not all interested inthe same music!)
4. People who adore Hamelin's playing and love every note of it.

Now, even if I was in any other category but 4, I know I would want to be in category 4.
Or perhaps listen to some of his live recordings. In my opinion, you cannot listen to his Alkan Op. 76 no. 3 from his wigmore cd and not be moved, stunned or excited!

and now i'm bored of writing "in my opinion", "I believe" and "i also think"...
now im off to gamingforce and dasdc to enjoy myself...

[mephisto]

Frankly, Hamelin sounds NOTHING like Gilels in any conceivable way. Gilels' playing has colour and a sense of drama. There is weight behind every one of Gilels' notes and his phrasing is always coherently thought out. His playing has line, and his phrases breathe. The majority of Gilels' performances have a sense of architecture and purpose.  Hamelin is a musicologist.  Gilels is a Kung-Fu master. 

It's interesting that you mentioned Gilels though, because I think he would have been temperamentally perfect or the AlKancerto.  Alas... 

Anyway, now that that's out of my system:

Hamelin's First 39/8-12 recording

Utterly lacking in any kind of interpretative input. Colorless. Percussive. Tedious.

Hamelin's Second 39/8-12 recording

Utterly lacking in any sensible interpretative input. Full of fawning and unconvincing rubato as if he TRIED very desperately to make music, but the result is even more contrived than the last one. His touch is still pallid and the phrasing lackluster. Alkan would not be pleased.

AVOID.

You should ask Hamelin to play for you in a masterclass, so that you can learn him how to play music

[jakev2.0]

And for my non-defensive or aggressive 2 cents: I think hamelin provides the best interpretations in recorded history of nearly everything he has recorded.

LOL.

You can't moan for his accuracy or because it doesn't have enough "interpretive" distortion of the music (i.e. excessive rubato)!

Since when are accuracy and interpretation mutually exclusive?

I also think he has an unparalleled technique with a godly dexterity to go with it.

Disagreed.

I believe it is his accuracy that's make people feel there's no "interpretation" in it - whatever that may mean!

Hmm. Rachmaninoff recordings are generally pretty accurate. Moiseiwitsch is usually on top of things, from a technical perspective. Friedman hit most of the right notes.  Rachmaninoff, Moiseiwitch, and Friedman were also pretty imaginative interpreters.

Come on, you can't bash an extremely successful concert artist! If he wants to play that way, that is the way he likes it to sound.

Success is not a measure artistic quality. Under that logic, ABBA have contributed more to musical culture than Artur Schnabel.  No artist is nor should be exempt from scrutiny. It make no sense.

In fact, I believe he has surpassed most other concert artists because he listens to the sound he makes so well. And if he doesn't flail his arms enough, I think there's always the "conservatory" clone LL...

I think you'll find the Hamelin Tone Fan Club a very lonely one.  Have you heard the guy's Beethoven Op. 109?

1. Those who listen to it with closed minds because they think they don't like hamelin
2. Those who listen to it and truly dislike the way he plays it (although this can change)
3. Those who are impartial and recognise it as an excellent recording but it doesn't interest them too much (after all, people are not all interested inthe same music!)
4. People who adore Hamelin's playing and love every note of it.

I used to be in the fourth category until I discovered that there were piano recordings made before 1990.

In my opinion, you cannot listen to his Alkan Op. 76 no. 3 from his wigmore cd and not be moved, stunned or excited!

In my opinion, you cannot listen to his Alkan Op. 76 no. 3 from his Wigmore CD without wishing he had not pedalled so much, or had had some creativty. Likewise, upon listening to his Balakirev-Chopin the following nagging question arises: "Can't I sightread better than this?"

[jakev2.0]

What is interpretation anyway? A little rubato there, accel. there, accentuation there. Nothing of real consequence, in my opinion.

I think "interpretation" is blown way out of proportion. What should matter in a recording is this:

1) accuracy
2) clarity of notes
3) reasonable following of composers intentions

Saying a rec is superior because the pianist used rubato in bar 147 is ridiculous.

Oh man. This post epitomizes the piano pathology in question.

[thalbergmad]

4. People who adore Hamelin's playing and love every note of it.

(even when its horrid)

[richard black]

I think you'll find the Hamelin Tone Fan Club a very lonely one.

Well, I'm happy enough to be in it.

[pies]

what i don't understand is why hamelin, with such a broad repertoire, would waste time on recording a piece again

[mephisto]

what i don't understand is why hamelin, with such a broad repertoire, would waste time on recording a piece again

I will explain it to you:

The first recording has a terrible recording sound.

[jakev2.0]

In that case he should re-record the new one too.

[retrouvailles]

In that case he should re-record the new one too.

In this case I think you should shut your (proverbial) mouth. You do nothing but senselessly and mindlessly bash Hamelin's recordings, despite his deserving of praise. Would you say that he sucks to his face? I think not. I think if you were to see him live and meet him afterward, you'd convert.

[jakev2.0]

Why would I tell him he sucked to his face? First off, it would be plain rude. Secondly, it's not like he can somehow synthesize musical talent out of thin air.

[term]

3) reasonable following of composers intentions

Don't agree. Pretty secondary in my opinion.

your three points can be done by a midi file.

Saying a rec is superior because the pianist used rubato in bar 147 is ridiculous.

Like rubato is just rubato. If the pianists use of rubato adds something to it, then it is superior.

@hamelin: I don't really know. But i'd go as far as to say that i trust almost every hamelin recording, which means that most of my preferred recs are not by hamelin, but that a hamelin performance is often very good to get a good impression of a piece. I.e, his standard is pretty high in my opinion.

[mephisto]

In that case he should re-record the new one too.

I think you misunderstood. I was talking about the piano itself, wich was bad in the first, and good in the second. As well as the enginering wich was bad in the first and great in the 2nd

[tompilk]

LOL.

Since when are accuracy and interpretation mutually exclusive?

Disagreed.

Hmm. Rachmaninoff recordings are generally pretty accurate. Moiseiwitsch is usually on top of things, from a technical perspective. Friedman hit most of the right notes.  Rachmaninoff, Moiseiwitch, and Friedman were also pretty imaginative interpreters.

Success is not a measure artistic quality. Under that logic, ABBA have contributed more to musical culture than Artur Schnabel.  No artist is nor should be exempt from scrutiny. It make no sense.

I think you'll find the Hamelin Tone Fan Club a very lonely one.  Have you heard the guy's Beethoven Op. 109?

I used to be in the fourth category until I discovered that there were piano recordings made before 1990.

In my opinion, you cannot listen to his Alkan Op. 76 no. 3 from his Wigmore CD without wishing he had not pedalled so much, or had had some creativty. Likewise, upon listening to his Balakirev-Chopin the following nagging question arises: "Can't I sightread better than this?"

and your defensive and almost aggressive responce is proof of why i don't come here often. If i say you're right, will it make you happy? This argument is in no way affecting how I enjoy the music, so just leave it out please.

[contrapunctus]

Javek2.0, I wish I was able to systematically break up a post and critizise each sentence individually as well as you.

But, I am only merely able to add a new thought to the debate instead of shooting down old ones.

Damn this creativity!! Why can't I be a cynical, crusty old man like yourself (or, perhaps, you are a very lonely teenager)?

Javek, you are in essence a forum troll.

[gaest]

I don't know about the MIDI thing but, to adress what Jakev says:
I listened to the Gibbon's recording on youtube. Everyone's comments places it way above Hamelin in terms of interpretation, BUT I don't know how that fact that Gibbons misses nearly every other note does not drastically take away from the enjoyment. I think accuracy trumps interp.

I'm curious what recording you're speaking about.  All I have is his studio recording of the piece, which to my ears is absolutely brilliant.

Everyone has their own opinion of Hamelin, and whether or not you like him is up to you (you being the collective you). 

Personally, I've never been a huge fan of him, because his music just doesn't speak to me.  I'm impressed by his technical prowess, but the majority of recordings I have heard of him have, as I've said elsewhere in this forum, left me cold.  Music isn't purely about notes played in the right order at the right time, and I prefer my music a little more expressive than how Hamelin makes it. 

His recordings of the Alkan Concerto aren't any exception.  His major fault, in my eyes, is that he intensifies the difficulty by rushing the fast notes, as though these fast notes are the point of the piece, when in reality there is so much more going on.  His playing of this piece has left me bored rather than thrilled or moved, whereas Gibbons' interpretation always leaves me excited and energized by the time the third movement draws to a close.  To me, Gibbons makes sense of the piece and gives it meaning.  Listening to Gibbons' Alkan Concerto is like reading a wonderful fantasy or fiction novel, while Hamelin's interpretation feels just like reading a dully-written textbook, which, while well-written, doesn't tell me anything because it just puts me to sleep.

Admittedly, I have not listened to all of Hamelin's recordings, but what I have listened to has left me emotionally unimpressed even while I appreciate his skill and dexterity.

As for the topic, I haven't heard both recordings, so I can't help there.

[wervel]

What's the point arguing about it?
It is bad music!

[tompilk]

What's the point arguing about it?
It is bad music!

ooooooooooh. burns.
There is little music that is more exciting than the first movement...

[jakev2.0]

Agreed. What did Alkan do to deserve Hamelin's advocacy?

[tompilk]

Agreed. What did Alkan do to deserve Hamelin's advocacy?

come on... im sure you're just saying some of this for effect. I really do recommend seeing him play this live. That's all I can say. Beats all of Gibbons and Latimer, straight into the ground, in my opinion.

[retrouvailles]

I wouldn't say that Gibbons' is all bad, but Latimer's is a travesty. I think we can all agree that it is the worst, even Jake.

[jakev2.0]

In my opinion, there is no recording of the Alkan Concerto that exhibits both musical and technical mastery.

I'd say that Ronald Smith's interpretation is the very best. It is a true labor of love worthy of a late Horowitz bootleg. Smith provides the best case for the concerto as a 19th century musical masterpiece that is worth paying attention to.  Gibbons' recordings are a nice blend of excellent technique and good interpretation, though I feel more could be said in the interpretative department. *parts* of John Ogdon's recording hit the mark technically, but he is terribly far from consistent. I don't consider Latimer's a serious attempt.
 
Hamelins recordings are both technically and musically completely mediocre. The musicality is utterly glib, dim, and clueless.  Likewise, if you are impressed by execution that has about as much colour and tonal penetration as Czerny played no louder mf, then I guess Hamelin's pianism will be satisfying to you. A drunk Hofmann, drugged Horowitz, or senile Arrau can all get much better sounds out of the piano than Hamelin trying his darnedest.

I have a feeling that Egon Petri may have come closest to technical and musical synthesis if his astonishing late Symphony recording is anything to go by.

[retrouvailles]

Stop making more of a fool and a troll out of yourself, Jake. Just leave. You aren't wanted here, until you come up with somewhat of a rational opinion.

[jakev2.0]

Stop making more of a fool and a troll out of yourself, Jake. Just leave. You aren't wanted here, until you come up with somewhat of a rational opinion.

Arrogant solipsist.

[mephisto]

When someone sais that Hamelin has good rythm, you point out that this is only because Hamelin has the worlds best technic. When someone sais Hamelin's technic is great, you say it's mediocre

Source:

https://www.dasdc.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5986&highlight=horowitz+scarlatti

[jakev2.0]

When someone sais that Hamelin has good rythm, you point out that this is only because Hamelin has the worlds best technic. When someone sais Hamelin's technic is great, you say it's mediocre

Source:

https://www.dasdc.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5986&highlight=horowitz+scarlatti

Course someone's opinion can't change within 2 years(!). 

[pita bread]

Alright ladies, I know its that time of month again or maybe menopause is kicking in early, but there really is no need for all this quibbling.

[richard black]

No, Jake, I think you really are in danger making a fool of yourself.

[franzliszt2]

Just buy the Smith Recording. Full of musicianship! I if anyone says "bluh bluh he hasn't got a good technique" you can also had to that sentance "I am not a pianist".

The new Hamelin cd is definatly better, the 1st one was awful! I mean really awful! It was unclear, I won't say to fast, becasue Alkan's speeds are very demanding and are usually faster than people play them. It made no sense as a structure (and the Alkan concerto isn't hard to grasp), it was noisy, and sounded really immature.

The new cd is a fantastic pianistic achievment, but it still lacks the tonal variety of the Smith recording. With Smith you can realyl tell the difference between piano and orchestra, with Hamelin, you can only tell becasue the orchestra part in the tutti's is thick and loud. Smith's power is also much deeper, Hamelin's is very much volume.

Please don't say "uhhh Smtih's is slow, he had a bad technique and couldn't play it fast" becasue you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about, and if you knew Smith when he was alive, I'm sure you would have a totalyl different opinion!

[retrouvailles]

Just buy the Smith Recording. Full of musicianship! I if anyone says "bluh bluh he hasn't got a good technique" you can also had to that sentance "I am not a pianist".

The new Hamelin cd is definatly better, the 1st one was awful! I mean really awful! It was unclear, I won't say to fast, becasue Alkan's speeds are very demanding and are usually faster than people play them. It made no sense as a structure (and the Alkan concerto isn't hard to grasp), it was noisy, and sounded really immature.

The new cd is a fantastic pianistic achievment, but it still lacks the tonal variety of the Smith recording. With Smith you can realyl tell the difference between piano and orchestra, with Hamelin, you can only tell becasue the orchestra part in the tutti's is thick and loud. Smith's power is also much deeper, Hamelin's is very much volume.

Please don't say "uhhh Smtih's is slow, he had a bad technique and couldn't play it fast" becasue you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about, and if you knew Smith when he was alive, I'm sure you would have a totalyl different opinion!

That is clearly a post brainwashed by too much listening to Horowitz from his later years. A higher technique does not always mean a lower potential for musicianship, or vice versa! Speed and dexterity in themselves are their own facets of musicianship and that is where Smith falls short. Buy the new Hamelin recording.