Yet Schumann has his share of 'bombs', the 1st symphony ('Spring') is one of the most utterly tedious and uninteresting pieces of music I've ever heard, the last movement in particular being a total waste. Funnily, driving in the car this afternoon I heard Schubert's 2nd symphony. I enjoyed every moment of it, great stuff, far superior to any Schumann symphony.
Wow, I just heard Hamelin's recording. Splendid! His recording does not incorporate the posthumous etudes, and I feel the work is so much tighter without them. Schumann's final thoughts were IMO correct. Well of course those extra etudes (variations, really) are glorious, but Schumann never made things easy. For years pianists have tried to find a way to incorporate those extra thoughts, but I've never heard a convincing solution. Generally I've found that the addition of the extra etudes simply ruin Schumann's architecture, and worse, the piece simply becomes too long to sustain interest. Kissin's recording is a great example of that.No win situation, alas. I played this piece on my final recital as a pianist (without the extra variations) and it still remains for me one of Schumann's most glorious piano works. Our good mate Thal won't agree, but of course he has not played it, not that it is any concern to him.
Which composer didn't have their share of 'bombs'!? Beethoven included!Schumann's 2nd symphony is glorious! The slow movt absolutely amazing! The 3rd symphony had that wonderful Cologne cathedral inspired 4th movt, I think Tovey called it something like the best polyphonic work since Bach and the architecture of the 4th was something completely revolutionary! I hope you're not knocking them when you haven't even heard them!
By the way, the Goldberg variations also has a supplement, and no sane musician would ever consider inserting them radomly within the magnificent architecture of Bach's masterpiece.
Richter, Moiseiwitsch, Cherkassky.Hmm...I think Hamelin might be the odd man out.
Hamelin's Schumann is nothing compared to Richter, Gilels, and most certainly Cherkassky!! I heard Cherkassky's recording a while ago and was completly amazed. How he gained a reputation....He had amazing musicianship, an incredible sound, a huge repertoire, a huge personality, a fantastic technique and was truely unique. Hamelin's recording of anything by Schumann is a must not buy. He just doesn't have the sound for Schumann
Hamelin's recording of anything by Schumann is a must not buy.
Heh, even I don't like the Hamelin recording that much. I personally like Pierre-Laurent Aimard's recording, if you want to talk about modern recordings of Schumann. But then again, who am I to talk about whose recording of Schumann is best? I don't even like Schumann, really. Definitely one of the most overrated romantic composers, if you ask me. And yes, I've heard pretty much all of his major compositions and the "best" recordings.
Please elaborate. I don't possibly see how you could consider Schumann one of the most overrated romantic composers. I'm curious to know you're reasoning although please acknowledge that I'm willing to respect your opinion.
The worst I have heard is by far Perahia's. His is half as slow as Richter's.
I cannot think of a more horrific combination.
Yes you can. Arrau and the Waldstein.
What about Perahia and Bartok?
Granted Perahia has a few sub par recordings
A few? I've never heard one recording by him that can even qualify as on par. It all sounds extremely dead to me. There is nothing ear catching about his playing. He doesn't seem to take any risks with his interpretations, and being a safe pianist all of the time just is not appealing.
Ramseytheii needs to teach him how to play Handel
Murray Perahia's playing is extremely lively and he creates phenomenal sounds. Calling him "safe" is an inaccurate statement. This is because he never messes around with the music and makes it sparkle on its own. And plus his Bach is very personally interpreted.
Perhaps he is just another Brendel to me. A lot of people say the same thing about the two of them, but I am just not seeing any of these lively qualities or phenomenal sounds. I tend to like a pianist that just lets the music shine on its own rather than someone on the other side of the spectrum, but there still needs to be something new that is brought to the table. Or else, what is the use for having their interpretation? They are better off not recording anything at all.
As if anyone on this board is qualified to teach Murray Perahia how to improve upon his Grammy quality Handel? No offense to Mr. Ramsey but this comment is blatantly ignorant.
Perahia's Chopin concerto's are stunning.
I knew you'd say that!
I'll be the judge of that
It's here...how do you plead?La loi c'est moi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!