Hamelin's two Alkan Concertos.

[jakev2.0]

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.

COMPLETE NONSENSE.

Nobody suggested the ridiculous notion that if someone has a good technique they must somehow be musically deficient. I've already addressed this:

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

The fact that this argument keeps cropping up is a testament to the lack of reasonable arguments Sham-elin fans can make to support his non-existent artistry.

Hamelin's recording is musically deficient because it is a bad interpretation.  Ironically, I think Hamelin has a poor ear and his technique is fakey and totally overrated as well.

[retrouvailles]

You are impossible. Sure, he isn't perfect, but he doesn't deserve all of the negative criticism that has been heaped at him. I bet you that if I were to give you a blind test between two pianists, one of them being Hamelin and the other someone else, you would pick Hamelin's most likely. Did he molest you as a child or something? Is that the reason why you have so much hate and irrational criticism for him? Face it. Rachmaninoff, Moiseiwitsch, and Friedman were all good in their own right, but you cannot compare them to modern pianists of today, especially Hamelin. That was a different time, and a different way of playing. Now is a different time. Different repertoire, different playing, different audience. You have listened to far too many recordings of that time to realize what is going on now. I'm done arguing with your sorry ass.

[tompilk]

You are impossible. Sure, he isn't perfect, but he doesn't deserve all of the negative criticism that has been heaped at him. I bet you that if I were to give you a blind test between two pianists, one of them being Hamelin and the other someone else, you would pick Hamelin's most likely. Did he molest you as a child or something? Is that the reason why you have so much hate and irrational criticism for him? Face it. Rachmaninoff, Moiseiwitsch, and Friedman were all good in their own right, but you cannot compare them to modern pianists of today, especially Hamelin. That was a different time, and a different way of playing. Now is a different time. Different repertoire, different playing, different audience. You have listened to far too many recordings of that time to realize what is going on now. I'm done arguing with your sorry ass.

hooray! well said...

[pies]

jake is the new soliloquy

[gaest]

Rachmaninoff, Moiseiwitsch, and Friedman were all good in their own right, but you cannot compare them to modern pianists of today, especially Hamelin. That was a different time, and a different way of playing. Now is a different time. Different repertoire, different playing, different audience. You have listened to far too many recordings of that time to realize what is going on now. I'm done arguing with your sorry ass.

I'm curious about how the playing could be so "different."  A good interpretation in Rachmaninoff's time period is still a good interpretation, as made clear by some of the recordings he's left behind.  And a bad interpretation today is still bad.  How can they not be compared?  Maybe Hamelin doesn't deserve to be reviled quite as much as Jake is reviling him, but I'm still firmly of the opinion that his interpretation of Alkan's Concerto is greatly lacking, no matter what his technique is.

That doesn't mean he's a bad pianist or terrible at all music.  It means simply what it says: that his performance of that piece on the recording I heard was a bad interpretation.

Now geez.  Both sides need to stop with the insults and derogatory comments.  You have different opinions, that's all, and neither one of you is an Omniscient God of Music Appreciation.  Agree to disagree - like adults, I might point out - and give the personal attacks a rest.

After all, in a debate, people only attack each other when they've got no other logical reason supporting their side.

[retrouvailles]

I'm still firmly of the opinion that his interpretation of Alkan's Concerto is greatly lacking, no matter what his technique is.

I am curious to know. What do you think his interpretation is lacking?

[gaest]

I am curious to know. What do you think his interpretation is lacking?

I've already expressed my opinion earlier, but I'll sum it up again:

Basically, I think Hamelin has an amazing technique.  When I listen to his performance of the Concerto, though, that technique is all I can hear.  I don't feel anything emotionally when listening to it, even though in the right hands it can be a truly moving and powerful piece of music.  I get the impression that Hamelin just doesn't quite understand the piece yet, or doesn't connect with it.  It is an impressive piece technically, which he is fully capable of handling, but all he seems to do is "handle" it without putting any of himself into it.  I've used this phrase too much, but it's really the only way I can describe the reaction I get from listening to his performance: it just leaves me cold, whereas other performances have left me thrilled to hear.

Pianists usually have their own strengths as far as composers go.  From what I've heard, Alkan is just not one of Hamelin's.

[faulty_damper]

I have noticed from peoples' opinions about performances that were spectacularly clean and clear that they are called "expressionless", "emotionless", "technical", etc.  When a performance is given that is not entirely clean or clear, they are called "expressive", "musical", etc.

These are ONLY the opinions of pianists.  Perhaps these pianists have insight to how a poor performance is actually better than a superb one?

One fault in perception among certain pianists is that they assume that in order for a performance to have a good interpretation, there must be percieved technical faults (non-legato, harsh tone, incorrect tempo, etc.)  When these are not present, it is called to be inferior.  How can that be?

What is the difference between someone who really is attentive to his tone and making music to someone who is at the mercy of the notes?  Apparently, according to some, being attentive to tone and musicianship takes a back seat to piano playing.

[gaest]

I have noticed from peoples' opinions about performances that were spectacularly clean and clear that they are called "expressionless", "emotionless", "technical", etc.  When a performance is given that is not entirely clean or clear, they are called "expressive", "musical", etc.

These are ONLY the opinions of pianists.  Perhaps these pianists have insight to how a poor performance is actually better than a superb one?

One fault in perception among certain pianists is that they assume that in order for a performance to have a good interpretation, there must be percieved technical faults (non-legato, harsh tone, incorrect tempo, etc.)  When these are not present, it is called to be inferior.  How can that be?

What is the difference between someone who really is attentive to his tone and making music to someone who is at the mercy of the notes?  Apparently, according to some, being attentive to tone and musicianship takes a back seat to piano playing.

I'm sorry if I offend, but you're completely misinterpreting.  A clean performance does not mean a bad interpretation, and I really don't see that anyone here on this thread has tried to claim otherwise.  A pianist can be both technically capable and brilliant at interpretations.

Hamelin's performance of this concerto, to my ears, is not one of those cases.  He plays a lot of notes, all of them correct, but the notes do not feel connected.  Thus the piece does not come together as a whole; instead, under his fingers it feels like a number of etudes smashed together to display technical prowess, not a full concerto that develops within each movement and throughout all the movements.

His performance for this piece does not capture my attention.  That does not mean he is incapable of expressive interpretations, only that the performance I heard of him does not represent that aspect of his style as much as it could.

My question right back to you is how a clean and clear performance is automatically "musical" or "expressive."  Hitting all the right notes in the right tempo does not make a piece musical, it just means you can put your fingers in the right place at the right time.  It doesn't matter how clear you make your notes sound if there is no emotion behind what you're playing (and I don't mean Lang Lang emotion here).

[tompilk]

He plays a lot of notes, all of them correct,

Not quite true. there are some wrong notes/misreadings and rhythms in there if you dig deep enough... and I'm saying this as someone who adores hamelin's interpretation! Just had to say it because it's true...

not a full concerto that develops within each movement and throughout all the movements.

hamelin's version has helped me best to understand the whole structure of the piece than all the others. i think this because the technique is so secure that he can focus completely on the music he is making, whereas some interpretations sound a little of a struggle (mainly Latimer's).
I also think something is lost in the slower tempo which McCallum took. It spoils it a bit for me, and I have to say she doesn't play louder than ff.
I agree that Smith's has the greatest interpretation in terms of representing the orchestral/solo contrasts. I really do believe this is the much better interpretation in these terms.

they are different interpretations in their own right and i recognise them as wonderful, but i choose hamelin's. surely there aren't more exciting interpretations out there? I mean, come on, this is some of the most exciting music ever written, so it should be played with flair. i think this must be why i prefer Hamelin's interpretation. It has the accuracy, speed and excitement. And the recording sound is top notch as well... although that is no reason to praise the performance.

[ahinton]

Not quite true. there are some wrong notes/misreadings and rhythms in there if you dig deep enough... and I'm saying this as someone who adores hamelin's interpretation! Just had to say it because it's true...
hamelin's version has helped me best to understand the whole structure of the piece than all the others. i think this because the technique is so secure that he can focus completely on the music he is making, whereas some interpretations sound a little of a struggle (mainly Latimer's).
I also think something is lost in the slower tempo which McCallum took. It spoils it a bit for me, and I have to say she doesn't play louder than ff.
I agree that Smith's has the greatest interpretation in terms of representing the orchestral/solo contrasts. I really do believe this is the much better interpretation in these terms.

they are different interpretations in their own right and i recognise them as wonderful, but i choose hamelin's. surely there aren't more exciting interpretations out there? I mean, come on, this is some of the most exciting music ever written, so it should be played with flair. i think this must be why i prefer Hamelin's interpretation. It has the accuracy, speed and excitement. And the recording sound is top notch as well... although that is no reason to praise the performance.

I have no especial fondness for Hamelin's first recording of this work, for all that it includes some phenomenally brilliant fingerwork and interesting insights. I've yet to hear the new Hyperion version so cannot yet comment on that.  Ronald Smith does indeed make the most of the contrast between orchestra and piano in this work; indeed, I actually discussed this aspect with him (Ronald Smith, that is) and he despaired of the lack of soloist / "orchestra" thrust in Hamelin's first recording whilst at the same time complimenting him on his most remarkable dextrous command of what it is that Alkan expects as of right from any pianist tackling his most demanding works; his actual words to me, as best I remember them, were "this man has fingers and reflexes that must be the envy of every pianist; he has more, I think, but why does he hold it all back?". A pianist that I know who has himself played the work once has heaped praise on both Smith and Hamelin 2 (for all that he believes that Hamelin has perhaps gone rather from one extreme to the other in his endeavours to point up the manifold expressive nuances in Alkan's wondrous concerto). I look forward to gertting my ears around Hamelin 2 - all the more so because of this discussion!...

Best,

Alistair

[tompilk]

yes! obtain a copy as quickly as possible! I'm sure Ronald Smith would have been ecstatic if he could hear it... it really is a wonderful recording. Was Hamelin aware of Smith's feelings? He seems to have taken more of that approach... very successfully in my opinion... although I wouldn't say he hasn't gone to the "other extreme" quite (but i'm sure you value the other pianist's opinion much more highly than a 17 year old medic-student wanna-be)...

Out of interest, Alistair, what's your opinion on Stephanie McCallum's recording? I thought I had this piece figured out in my head and she comes and confused me! Startling to say the least...

[franzliszt2]

Tompilk you mention accuracy...it's a studio recording.

Speed, riiighhht thats whats important isn't it.

Excitment, I woulnd't exactly describe Alkan concerto as exciting, it's much deeper than that.

Alkans music is not extrovert at all. The concerto isn't extrovert at all. Ypu people have no idea about Alkan as a person, you just think speeed. Lets think what kind of person Alkan was...I wonder how he would have played it. 

[jakev2.0]

Thanks for sharing that interesting anecdote, Alistair.

[wervel]

his actual words to me, as best I remember them, were "this man has fingers and reflexes that must be the envy of every pianist; he has more, I think, but why does he hold it all back?"

Since he does hold 'all that back' all of the time, one can only conclude that there really is nothing more to Hamelin.
He is a robot, not a musician. He does not understand music. He's the kind of genious that could as well perform at the circus. (Hell, he could as well play some Sorabji. )

[ahinton]

yes! obtain a copy as quickly as possible! I'm sure Ronald Smith would have been ecstatic if he could hear it... it really is a wonderful recording. Was Hamelin aware of Smith's feelings? He seems to have taken more of that approach... very successfully in my opinion... although I wouldn't say he hasn't gone to the "other extreme" quite (but i'm sure you value the other pianist's opinion much more highly than a 17 year old medic-student wanna-be)...

As I said, I've not yet heard the second version, so I cannot comment. I have no doubt that Mr Smith would have been far too polite directly to express any reservations and almost certainly had no opportunity to praise what he found remarkable in it either.

Out of interest, Alistair, what's your opinion on Stephanie McCallum's recording? I thought I had this piece figured out in my head and she comes and confused me! Startling to say the least...

I cannot say that I was overawed by the McCallum, well-meaning though no doubt it is. But, for heaven's sake, anyone that can actually get through this piece at all convincingly has already achieved something of which most pianists would barely be capable...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Since he does hold 'all that back' all of the time, one can only conclude that there really is nothing more to Hamelin.

"One" being the operative word, presumably - and that "one" being you...

He is a robot, not a musician. He does not understand music.

I'll be sure to pass on your two compliments to him. Not. In fact, I'll refrain from comment on them, since they deserve less than no comment.

He's the kind of genious that could as well perform at the circus.

If "genious", then circous", surely?...

(Hell, he could as well play some Sorabji. )

He played Sorabji's first piano sonata years ago and recorded it, as you would already be well aware if you actually knew knew anything about Hamelin; what that may have to do with the circus - or the "circous" - remains unknown to me, however...

Best,

Alistair

[retrouvailles]

If anyone has ANY doubts about Hamelin's Alkan abilities, listen to his Trois Morceaux dans le Genre Pathétique, Op. 15. The score has no indications whatsoever, and it leaves much up to the performer. If Hamelin truly knew NOTHING about Alkan or the music, he would not have provided one of the most touching and musical interpretations of Alkan in these three fine works. I'm sure Alkan and Sorabji (he was fond of these works) would have been proud to have heard Hamelin play these works. Perhaps even Schumann, who hated them!

[gaest]

If anyone has ANY doubts about Hamelin's Alkan abilities, listen to his Trois Morceaux dans le Genre Pathétique, Op. 15. The score has no indications whatsoever, and it leaves much up to the performer. If Hamelin truly knew NOTHING about Alkan or the music, he would not have provided one of the most touching and musical interpretations of Alkan in these three fine works. I'm sure Alkan and Sorabji (he was fond of these works) would have been proud to have heard Hamelin play these works. Perhaps even Schumann, who hated them!

However well he plays Op. 15, it won't change his performance of the Concerto.  I'm sure he knows plenty about Alkan, and I'm not doubting his knowledge.  I'm glad to hear he performs Op.15 well; I'll have to check out a copy of it.  (It's interesting that the piece that leaves so much up to the performer is a piece that he can perform so well.)  But I still doubt from the recording I heard that he connects with the Concerto.  Being able to play one piece by a composer well doesn't, IMO, mean that you're able to play all pieces by that composer.  Each piece is its own individual that needs to be explored and comprehended.

indeed, I actually discussed this aspect with him (Ronald Smith, that is) and he despaired of the lack of soloist / "orchestra" thrust in Hamelin's first recording whilst at the same time complimenting him on his most remarkable dextrous command of what it is that Alkan expects as of right from any pianist tackling his most demanding works; his actual words to me, as best I remember them, were "this man has fingers and reflexes that must be the envy of every pianist; he has more, I think, but why does he hold it all back?".

That's an interesting story, and that last comment by Mr. Smith hits the nail on the head for me.  That has been what I was trying to get at in my own ineloquent way.  It feels like Hamelin's holding back during the Concerto.  His fingers fly but his emotions stay firmly locked up.  To me, it really feels like a piece that is being picked at in an intelligent manner, not an emotional one.  He doesn't put himself into it as much as he could.  I'm not looking for overly dramatic expressiveness, here... just some sense that he connects to the piece on an emotional level.  The performance will not be convincing to me until he does.

[ahinton]

It feels like Hamelin's holding back during the Concerto.  His fingers fly but his emotions stay firmly locked up.  To me, it really feels like a piece that is being picked at in an intelligent manner, not an emotional one.  He doesn't put himself into it as much as he could.  I'm not looking for overly dramatic expressiveness, here... just some sense that he connects to the piece on an emotional level.  The performance will not be convincing to me until he does.

I don't know whether you mean that you derive this impression from one or other or both of Hamelin's recordings of the Concerto but, now that I have listened to the more recent one, I can say that the impression it gives me is one that makes me disagree with yours and suggests stringly to me that he has "unbuttoned" himself considerably since the days when he made his first recording of the work. Perhaps if the new recording has a flaw at all it is actually one of just abit too much expressive point-making on occasion rather than merely letting the music speak for itself under his expert hands; maybe this is an illustration of a stage in Hamelin's maturing as a pianist. This Hyperion recording seems to me to be pretty much a benchmark one of that vast and vastly important piece.

Best,

Alistair

[gaest]

Hmmm.... perhaps the recording I listened to was his first one, then, since I didn't get any impression similar to yours.

In the interest of fairness, I'll look for his most recent recording.   

[retrouvailles]

Hmmm.... perhaps the recording I listened to was his first one, then, since I didn't get any impression similar to yours.

In the interest of fairness, I'll look for his most recent recording.   

I would almost be willing to bet my right arm that you heard the first.

[ahinton]

Hmmm.... perhaps the recording I listened to was his first one, then, since I didn't get any impression similar to yours.

In the interest of fairness, I'll look for his most recent recording.   

Was the one you heard on the American Music & Arts label? It was recorded on a Yamaha and released in 1992. More importantly, perhaps, when did you hear it? - if it was before last year, it must indeed have been that first one.

Best,

Alistair

[general disarray]

This spirited debate on Hamelin is what goes on in my head every time I listen to his recordings:  I love him and hate him at the same time and I have other pianist friends who feel the same way.

All of us have the same thing in common, however:  we're never heard him LIVE and I think that must make all the difference.  The closest I've gotten to "live" is his DVD, "It's all about the music," which made me fall in love with him and his artistry.

That earlier American Music & Arts Alkan isn't worthy of him, I think.  Horrible sound that I just can't get beyond to even search for interpretation issues.  What does come through is his super-human facility -- and I ain't sniffing at that, folks.  I'll get the new one based on the mainly glowing reviews here.

My personal take is that Hyperion, believe it or not, doesn't record his sound truly enough.  It always, to me, has this recessed, dampened, dearly-departedness about the sound.  His Dukas Sonata, which I couldn't wait to buy, disappointed me enormously and to this day I can't tell you exactly why.  An earlier Margaret Fingerhut Chandos recording that I have is technically inferior to Hamelin in almost every way, but, as slow and sometimes doggedly plodding as it is, it has breath and life to it. 

Maybe it's Hamelin's phrasing that doesn't stir me? I rarely seem to feel that he is, well, breathing.

But, again, I'm not criticising this wonderful artist.  Not really.  I'm criticising and questioning my ability to truly hear him on recordings.

Deryk Cooke once said he hated the second movement of Beethoven's Fifth but understood that it was HIS problem.  To him it was "a closed door," and he deeply regretted it.  That's how I feel about many of Hamelin's recordings.  I blame myself . . . when I'm not blaming Hyperion.  Yet, I admire Hyperion most of the time.

I think I'm losing my mind here.

[tompilk]

Tompilk you mention accuracy...it's a studio recording.

that doesnt stop me having seen it live...

[gaest]

I would almost be willing to bet my right arm that you heard the first.

Was the one you heard on the American Music & Arts label? It was recorded on a Yamaha and released in 1992. More importantly, perhaps, when did you hear it? - if it was before last year, it must indeed have been that first one.

Best,

Alistair

I've listened to a thirty-second snippet of the most recent release (listening to the full recording is, unfortunately, not possible right now), but even from that short snippet, I'm almost certain that the recording I heard was his first.  The sound quality is completely different than I remember from the release I heard.  Hopefully he has also gained a deeper connection to the piece; it is hard to tell from the short bit I listened to.

I will listen to the full recording once I finally get a chance to, so that I can make a better comparison between him and Gibbons as far as interpretations for the Solo Concerto go.

Alistair, as far as your questions go, I don't recall the label, but I just heard it within the last year, which is why I wasn't sure which recording I'd heard.

[glynthomas]

Well, this is my first posting on here, just decided I'd add my thoughts to the debate!

I saw Hamelin's live performance of the Alkan concerto last summer at the Cheltenham (England) Festival, it was absolutely stunning. There was no lack of excitement and real interpretative insight. In my view neither of the two recordings comes close to delivering in comparison to the live performance - although I would say the Hyperion one is an improvement over the earlier recording.

Glyn

[tompilk]

Well, this is my first posting on here, just decided I'd add my thoughts to the debate!

I saw Hamelin's live performance of the Alkan concerto last summer at the Cheltenham (England) Festival, it was absolutely stunning. There was no lack of excitement and real interpretative insight. In my view neither of the two recordings comes close to delivering in comparison to the live performance - although I would say the Hyperion one is an improvement over the earlier recording.

Glyn

i was there too! apparently he's coming back to this year's festival on 10th July... i don't know what he's playing though... he doesn't seem to have released his concert dates for this year for some reason...

[glynthomas]

That would be fantastic! I noticed as well that this year's concert dates were missing, which is strange, but I'd definitely go down to cheltenham again for that (a lot of other great concerts and recitals too).