Best Recording or Performances of Liszt Transcendental Etudes

[danhuyle]

Topic. I love these pieces and enjoy listening to it. What's the best recording out there for these? I've got Jeno Jando's recording of it, however I want to listen to a variety of others as well.

[franz_]

I be wrong, but I Ovchinikov (or some similar name) recorded it superbly. Check the 2nd etude of him on youtube.

[thalbergmad]

1. Berman
2. Berman
3. Berman
4. Berman
5. Berman
6. Berman
7. Berman
8. Berman
9. Berman
10. Berman

Thal
 

[overfjell]

I think Berezovsky

[mephisto]

Berman
Berezovsky
Richter

[thalbergmad]

Berman

 

[franz_]

True... Forgot Berezovsky of course.
But check this one:

[54545]

Arrau's is the most poetic.

Dimitris Sgouros is the most straightforward.

Busoni's is the most vivid.

[john11inc]

Anyone who chooses someone other than Lazar Berman is either ignorant or just futilely attempting to be contrary.  This question is on par with, "what is 1+1?"  There is a right answer, but that doesn't stop the internet from feeding you crap, particularly Arrau (or Berezovsky, who will only be mentioned because there are high definition videos of a soulless, live performance of the set on Youtube, and that's what matters, right?).  Arrau is comparative garbage in the TE's; at least say Cziffra if you have this desperate urge to choose someone other than Berman.  Christ.  Sgouros and Richter make even less sense; seem to be deigned by being a fan of the pianists, as opposed to the recordings (I can only assume).  Ashkenazy's is not that great, but a lot of people hold it in high regard, so check it out, I guess.  Busoni didn't record the whole set as far as I know; I'd love to be proven wrong on that, but as far as I know most are missing.  So selecting Busoni is equally suspect, regarding motive.

In the interest of fairness, Arrau's is usually considered to be the other "best" set, along with Berman's, so certainly take a look at it, but in my opinion, they're just worlds apart in quality.  Take a look at Bolet's, if you want; they are far from the most technically impressive, but the quality of interpretation supersedes that, in most cases.  Also, you might be able to get a more interesting conversation if you asked about best interpretations of each etude separately.

[danhuyle]

Ochinikov's recordings are on the top of my list. Is there a CD recording, site or somewhere to get Ochinikov's recording of the complete Liszt Transcendental Etudes?

[wsmith]

Anyone familiar with Alfredo Perl's recording of the set?

[franz_]

Anyone who chooses someone other than Lazar Berman is either ignorant or just futilely attempting to be contrary.  This question is on par with, "what is 1+1?"  There is a right answer, but that doesn't stop the internet from feeding you crap, particularly Arrau (or Berezovsky, who will only be mentioned because there are high definition videos of a soulless, live performance of the set on Youtube, and that's what matters, right?).  Arrau is comparative garbage in the TE's; at least say Cziffra if you have this desperate urge to choose someone other than Berman.  Christ.  Sgouros and Richter make even less sense; seem to be deigned by being a fan of the pianists, as opposed to the recordings (I can only assume).  Ashkenazy's is not that great, but a lot of people hold it in high regard, so check it out, I guess.  Busoni didn't record the whole set as far as I know; I'd love to be proven wrong on that, but as far as I know most are missing.  So selecting Busoni is equally suspect, regarding motive.

In the interest of fairness, Arrau's is usually considered to be the other "best" set, along with Berman's, so certainly take a look at it, but in my opinion, they're just worlds apart in quality.  Take a look at Bolet's, if you want; they are far from the most technically impressive, but the quality of interpretation supersedes that, in most cases.  Also, you might be able to get a more interesting conversation if you asked about best interpretations of each etude separately.

I'm worried about you. Go to a psychiatrist. You haven't a monopoly on the truth.
In art 1+1 doesn't exist. Respect some opinions; that's the whole point of this forum anyway. Otherwise, go, and right a book or something.

[kelly_kelly]

I like Bolet... possibly because it's the first set I listened to though.

[john11inc]

I'm worried about you. Go to a psychiatrist. You haven't a monopoly on the truth.
In art 1+1 doesn't exist. Respect some opinions; that's the whole point of this forum anyway. Otherwise, go, and right a book or something.

Literally everything you said is wrong.

[overfjell]

Literally everything you said is wrong.

And literally everything you said shows your close mindedness and elitism.

[john11inc]

Well I've been a good boy for a while, now, but I'm due, so here we go.

And literally everything you said shows your close mindedness and elitism.

UH OH.  SOMEONE CAN USE BUZZ WORDS.

"Elite"?  So sorry to be being "elite" when someone asks what the "best" recording is.  How much pussy-footing should I do when stating that Berman's is the best?  Or, excuse me, that I personally think, and I apologize to no end if someone else disagrees, and please don't yell at me, and I know everyone has different opinions, and I'm so sorry if someone's offended, and everyone can think whatever they want, but I personally (only personally and subjectively) think Berman's is the best, er, I mean, enjoy Berman's performance (apologies, apologies all around), but that's not to knock someone else's, which might be just as good (or better!  Sure, why not?!?), or anyone's differing opinions, which are of equal value to mine, no matter what.  So sorry!  Please forgive me!  It's just how I feel!

Is that better?  You know, the 70's, hugs-and-kisses self esteem movement kind of ended. . . in the 70's.  Why don't you stop getting your dick in a knot and just realize that, of course, and necessarily, when I say that something is better, it means that such is my opinion.  Hey, you know what, Sherlock?  Why don't you get out your baton and magnifying glass and go scour Pianostreet for other posts where people have said things, but didn't put, "in my opinion," in front of every, single statement (not that I didn't in the post you're referring to, which is the most ironic part; is this really the only thing you could find to moan about?).  Maybe it's just me being an "elitist", but I bet you can probably find more!  In my "elitist" opinion, if you're too stupid to understand that, then thank god for us non-stupid elitists!  Glad to know I'm in that crowd; wouldn't want to be down in the unintellectual quagmire you non-elite guys are.

Regarding your choice of words, "elitist" is so philistine, pedestrian, plebeian etc.  Why don't you learn to express yourself in a manner that has a meaning, as opposed to hurling what has become an idiotic catch phrase for the ignorant and uninitiated in some attempt to, in the greatest display of mass-appeal, denigrate intelligence/knowledge and idolize lack thereof and/or a cultured taste.  You keep telling yourself that's what's going on, and not only might you eventually convince yourself, but you'll definitely miss out on the opportunity to actually learn something (much less give people the impression that you have; I have this sneaking suspicion that the latter is more important to someone like you).  What does "elitist" even mean, and how does it apply to this context?  Is it that my selection of Berman is elite, that Berman's recording itself is elite, or that my opinion on the other sets is elite, or that having such opinions in and of itself is elite?  Can you be more specific?  I know this is sort of abstract and you don't understand the nuance, but when you try to use abstract terms in a vague manner, sometimes people ask follow up questions.  Is Berman himself "elite"?  If so, how?  Because he's a good pianist?  Should I get in my time machine and tell him to play them worse so some snot on pianostreet isn't going to accuse him of being "elite"?  let's try to figure it out.

Ironic to the specific pianist, Berman is probably one of the "great pianists" who fits into the tacit understanding of what "elite" means in the arts the worst.  Big, brash, loud, a bit sloppy, overtly romantic, anti-intellectual etc.  So it must not be Berman's performance that's elite. . .  One must assume that I wouldn't select such a recording if it wasn't elite and I am an elitist, so it must not be that I selected Berman's performance that is causing you to feel this abstract emotion, or whatever it is.  So there's two down.

Is it my negative opinion on the other sets in comparison to Berman's that makes me an "elitist"?  Surely you can't come up with a logical explanation, formal or modal, as to why a positive statement is not elite, but its second degree is.  "Berman's performance is the best," is not elite, whereas, "performances that are not Berman's are not the best," is?  You are aware that the statements are different degrees of the same statement, correct?  So it's not that. . .

So is it that me having opinions regarding which one is the best is "elite"?  Again, it is the same statement as the others.  There is no difference.  If my opinion is elite, then so is anyone else's who has written a pianist's name in this thread.  So it must not be that, because you're not complaining about them. . .

OH.  I SEE.  Now I get it.  I called Berman's good and someone else's not good!  I am elite because I have a negative opinion about something.  Well sh*t; again, let's get to calling everyone in this thread elite.  I think you owe me an apology for singling me out when every person in the entire world is actually elite.

No wait; I have an even more compelling theory.  My post had the most words in it.  So I am an "elitist" because, instead of my post consisting of the brainy, intellectual 1-3 words, I actually wrote something and dared to make an assertion (which I claimed was an "opinion" and elaborated to the negative regarding giving an "unbiased" answer; is it that you missed that, or that you don't know what those words mean?).  God help anyone on this forum who can't express how they feel in less than a single sentence (fragment).

And there's more!  I have a feeling that if I wrote whatever crappy recording you like the most, and just inserted it into the exact same thing I wrote above, then you wouldn't complain in the slightest.  So you are the one being biased.  It is your view which is biased; not mine.  You make an assertion of elitism regarding an opinion that differs from yours (coming to Berezovsky's rescue?  Just like Lassie!), then state it unequivocally in the context of me doing so is "elitist," whereas I stated how I felt, noted that it was an opinion, explained that my opinion differs from the status quo and recommended he look into the Arrau.  So, in fact, it is you who is being "elite," and not me.

I'm still not done.  Have you ever heard of "rhetoric" or "sarcasm"?  Are you aware that these things do not operate exclusive to the internet, pianostreet or my posts?  What about "exaggeration"?  Perhaps you should look these things up (assuming your narrow field of interests, brought on by your crippling case of Asperger's Syndrome, will allow it).  I know these are big, scary words, but with effort and perseverance, you can figure them out and realize that they probably applied to my post in some way or another.  Not that it matters: my post at Autistic, face value is still in no way different to the one-word posts.  They assert the same thing.  I'm sorry that, A- our opinions differ, B- do so in a manner as flagrant as that represented in my post (be aware that such means YOUR opinion is equally strong), C- you are incapable of realizing this.  I'll be sure to be more innocuous when I think your royal majesty might grace us with his authoritative presence and declare all opinions that express dislike for something you enjoy to be "elitist" because your opinion that it is good is just as valuable as my opinion that Berman is good.  And you are aware that such a train of thought renders anything equally good, correct?  Picasso and my retarded four year old cousin are equally good artists, correct?  You can't say Picasso is better!  They are equally good.  That is your logic.  If opinions are equally valid, then so are their suppositions.  Want me to take you on a kick-ass tour of epistemic justification really quick in case you don't understand?  Because I will.

Wait.  What about your opinion that something is good contra my opinion that something is bad?  Surely you can logically state how they are unequal, and not only that, but in your favor.  Not that you would be able to do that within the regressive, naive framework of "logic" you've set up.  How is it that you can be so idiotic in such a short sentence?  Usually it takes a lot more effort to evince such a lack of basic, human understanding.  Most animals have to try harder than you did.

Why don't you go crawl back to youtube and find a bunch of stuff you don't understand and call it "elite"?  Seems like the sort of thing that probably takes up a lot of your time.  By the way, what's the cutoff?  You've got a lot of Nickelback and. . . I don't know. . . Green Day in your favorites there, right?  Because it would be elite not to.  To have the opinion that something is worse than something else would be elite, and make you elite o_O  Say it: "I like Nickelback, who are as good as Beethoven."  Say it.  Unless you're a hypocrite (which you are).

I mean, come on, kid.  You're the elitist.  You're the one who thinks his opinion is worth more than it is, because you think it's worth as much as someone else's.  The assumption that all opinions are created equal. . . THAT is elitism.  If I brought the entire piano and musicology departments in here from Moscow Conservatory, Paris Conservatoire, Curtis and Juilliard and they all said that Berman's was the best, then you come up in here and say that you like what Maksim did with Mazeppa, you're the one overvaluing your opinion when you think it's as valuable as theirs.  They're not being "elitist" by being smarter/more knowledgeable than you.  That just makes them elite.  You do know what "elite" really means, right?  It means better than you.  Get used to this fact: your opinion is not as important as others.  I'm not even going to go there as far as whether your opinion or my opinion is more important, but your train of logic doesn't even allow for the discussion, which makes it asinine.

[minor9th]

Berman.

[overfjell]

I suppose I should take a look at this ridiculous essay. Which begs the question, why make such a long answer to such a short post, like showing people we can waffle do we?

Well I've been a good boy for a while, now, but I'm due, so here we go.

UH OH.  SOMEONE CAN USE BUZZ WORDS.

"Elite"?  So sorry to be being "elite" when someone asks what the "best" recording is.  How much pussy-footing should I do when stating that Berman's is the best?  Or, excuse me, that I personally think, and I apologize to no end if someone else disagrees, and please don't yell at me, and I know everyone has different opinions, and I'm so sorry if someone's offended, and everyone can think whatever they want, but I personally (only personally and subjectively) think Berman's is the best, er, I mean, enjoy Berman's performance (apologies, apologies all around), but that's not to knock someone else's, which might be just as good (or better!  Sure, why not?!?), or anyone's differing opinions, which are of equal value to mine, no matter what.  So sorry!  Please forgive me!  It's just how I feel!

Okay, let me get this out of the way, I respect your opinion, I happen to love Berman's interpretations of everything I've heard him play, the Transcendental Etudes are no exception and my post was by no way trying to disagree with that. So let's stop with the patronising and actually talk to me like an equal or am I too beneath you for that? Is my tiny intelligence too tiny for you to bother replying respectfully to?

Is that better?  You know, the 70's, hugs-and-kisses self esteem movement kind of ended. . . in the 70's.  Why don't you stop getting your dick in a knot and just realize that, of course, and necessarily, when I say that something is better, it means that such is my opinion.

You say that now, and yet your previous post attests differently to that, you put your opinion across as an objective fact:

Anyone who chooses someone other than Lazar Berman is either ignorant or just futilely attempting to be contrary.  This question is on par with, "what is 1+1?"  There is a right answer,

This is not someone giving an opinion, this is someone being an *** and demeaning everyone's opinion that is contrary to their own.

Hey, you know what, Sherlock?  Why don't you get out your baton and magnifying glass and go scour Pianostreet for other posts where people have said things, but didn't put, "in my opinion," in front of every, single statement (not that I didn't in the post you're referring to, which is the most ironic part; is this really the only thing you could find to moan about?).  Maybe it's just me being an "elitist", but I bet you can probably find more!  In my "elitist" opinion, if you're too stupid to understand that, then thank god for us non-stupid elitists!  Glad to know I'm in that crowd; wouldn't want to be down in the unintellectual quagmire you non-elite guys are.

I'd have had no problem with you not stating that it's your opinion, but you actively stated it as objective fact, on par with 1+1.
And again with the insults you condescending git, you gauge someone's intellect on one post and you expect your opinion to be taken seriously on anything that needs more, oh, I don't know, attention to detail?
Get off your damned pedestal you egotist.

Regarding your choice of words, "elitist" is so philistine, pedestrian, plebeian etc.

Clever you for using alliterative words not commonly used by us unintelligent swine!


 

Why don't you learn to express yourself in a manner that has a meaning, as opposed to hurling what has become an idiotic catch phrase for the ignorant and uninitiated in some attempt to, in the greatest display of mass-appeal, denigrate intelligence/knowledge and idolize lack thereof and/or a cultured taste.  

I'll make an effort to reply in a reasonable manner to someone who isn't a self obsessed pedant. Respect other people and you may get respectful replies yourself...

You keep telling yourself that's what's going on, and not only might you eventually convince yourself, but you'll definitely miss out on the opportunity to actually learn something (much less give people the impression that you have; I have this sneaking suspicion that the latter is more important to someone like you).

To someone like me? Okay, I've resisted it, but *** you! You know not the first thing about me, and yet you're carrying on like I'm some uneducated scum, it's people like you that give the classical music loving community a bad name, you treat every differing opinion with the utmost of scorn in the most convoluted 'essays' I've ever seen.

What does "elitist" even mean, and how does it apply to this context?

Well if elitist was the wrong word for this context, please enlighten me, oh wise one.

Is it that my selection of Berman is elite, that Berman's recording itself is elite, or that my opinion on the other sets is elite, or that having such opinions in and of itself is elite?  Can you be more specific?

No, the opinion that everyone else is wrong simply because some may disagree with you is elitist. Don't flatter yourself, Berman is elite, you are elitist, Berman brought beautiful music to the lives of many, you sit here and try to one up people with extremely wordy posts on an internet forum.

I know this is sort of abstract and you don't understand the nuance, but when you try to use abstract terms in a vague manner, sometimes people ask follow up questions.

Seriously, get off your high horse, what makes you so superior to me?

 Is Berman himself "elite"?  If so, how?  Because he's a good pianist?

Yes, he is part of the elite when it comes to piano playing because he's a good pianist. Yet I am fairly sure Berman himself would be willing to accept other interpretations as equally worthy because art is subjective.

 Should I get in my time machine and tell him to play them worse so some snot on pianostreet isn't going to accuse him of being "elite"?  let's try to figure it out.

Again, why are you so vitriolic? Again, *** you.

Ironic to the specific pianist, Berman is probably one of the "great pianists" who fits into the tacit understanding of what "elite" means in the arts the worst.  Big, brash, loud, a bit sloppy, overtly romantic, anti-intellectual etc.  So it must not be Berman's performance that's elite. . .  One must assume that I wouldn't select such a recording if it wasn't elite and I am an elitist, so it must not be that I selected Berman's performance that is causing you to feel this abstract emotion, or whatever it is.  So there's two down.

What?

Is it my negative opinion on the other sets in comparison to Berman's that makes me an "elitist"?

It's the arrogance and snobbishness with which you dismiss them.

 

Surely you can't come up with a logical explanation, formal or modal, as to why a positive statement is not elite, but its second degree is.  "Berman's performance is the best," is not elite, whereas, "performances that are not Berman's are not the best," is?  You are aware that the statements are different degrees of the same statement, correct?  So it's not that. . .

Yours was neither of those, though, was it? Yours was that Berman's is indisputably the best calling Arrau's 'garbage' and Berezovsky's soulless, while dismissing Richter as not making sense. Your blasé attitude at dismissing other performances is unmerited and conceited in artistic discourse, which is, ultimately, subjective to the individual.

So is it that me having opinions regarding which one is the best is "elite"?  Again, it is the same statement as the others.  There is no difference.  If my opinion is elite, then so is anyone else's who has written a pianist's name in this thread.  So it must not be that, because you're not complaining about them. . .

No, it's not, I'm not repeating myself again.

OH.  I SEE.  Now I get it.  I called Berman's good and someone else's not good!  I am elite because I have a negative opinion about something.  Well sh*t; again, let's get to calling everyone in this thread elite.  I think you owe me an apology for singling me out when every person in the entire world is actually elite.

Do you have no actually argument or are you just going to misrepresent what I said? You know perfectly well what I meant when I said what I did. I personally am not a big lover of Cziffra's interpretation, but am I going to dismiss it as 'soulless' or 'garbage?' No, I'm not, because evidently, unlike you, I respect the work pianists put into their art. I respect the opinions of other people.

No wait; I have an even more compelling theory.  My post had the most words in it.  So I am an "elitist" because, instead of my post consisting of the brainy, intellectual 1-3 words, I actually wrote something and dared to make an assertion (which I claimed was an "opinion" and elaborated to the negative regarding giving an "unbiased" answer; is it that you missed that, or that you don't know what those words mean?).  God help anyone on this forum who can't express how they feel in less than a single sentence (fragment).

Yeah, 'cause heaven forbid, I'm actually able to read. Your post clearly states, as I demonstrated earlier, that even had you stated it was an opinion, you're still masquerading it as fact and dismissing everyone else's opinion as false.
As for the last sentence, an obvious jibe at my original post, I felt I had no reason to expand upon what I said.

And there's more!  I have a feeling that if I wrote whatever crappy recording you like the most, and just inserted it into the exact same thing I wrote above, then you wouldn't complain in the slightest.  So you are the one being biased.  It is your view which is biased; not mine.  You make an assertion of elitism regarding an opinion that differs from yours (coming to Berezovsky's rescue?  Just like Lassie!), then state it unequivocally in the context of me doing so is "elitist," whereas I stated how I felt, noted that it was an opinion, explained that my opinion differs from the status quo and recommended he look into the Arrau.  So, in fact, it is you who is being "elite," and not me.

That's where you're wrong, I would still have called you out on your arrogance. Comparing me to Lassie? Man, can you actually make a coherent argument against someone without insulting them multiple times when they're completely unwarranted? The start of this post also completely proves my point, you have no interest in discourse, you simply want to slander interpreters you don't like. Also, evidently your opinion does not differ from the status quo, practically everyone in this thread has said Berman.

I'm still not done.  Have you ever heard of "rhetoric" or "sarcasm"?  Are you aware that these things do not operate exclusive to the internet, pianostreet or my posts?  What about "exaggeration"?  Perhaps you should look these things up (assuming your narrow field of interests, brought on by your crippling case of Asperger's Syndrome, will allow it).

Does this merit even a serious answer? Again, making unwarranted assumptions that have no basis in reality. Screw you.

Oh, look, I used a rhetorical question!

... >_>

I know these are big, scary words, but with effort and perseverance, you can figure them out and realize that they probably applied to my post in some way or another.  Not that it matters: my post at Autistic, face value is still in no way different to the one-word posts.

First asperger's, and now autism, make up your bloody mind.



 

They assert the same thing.  I'm sorry that, A- our opinions differ, B- do so in a manner as flagrant as that represented in my post (be aware that such means YOUR opinion is equally strong), C- you are incapable of realizing this.

Yeah, somehow I doubt you've ever made a sincere apology in your life. I couldn't a crap about our different opinions, I like honest discourse, but you are not interested in discussion, you are interested in insulting other people and other people's opinions.

I'll be sure to be more innocuous when I think your royal majesty might grace us with his authoritative presence and declare all opinions that express dislike for something you enjoy to be "elitist" because your opinion that it is good is just as valuable as my opinion that Berman is good.

This is really all your post consists of, isn't it? Misrepresentation and insults. Any actual substance of an argument in your post could have been summed up in about three lines. Without all of the faux misunderstanding and insults.


 

And you are aware that such a train of thought renders anything equally good, correct?  Picasso and my retarded four year old cousin are equally good artists, correct?  You can't say Picasso is better!  They are equally good.  That is your logic.  If opinions are equally valid, then so are their suppositions.  Want me to take you on a kick-ass tour of epistemic justification really quick in case you don't understand?  Because I will.

What makes art so special to people? The way it reaches into someone's psyche and touches what would be their soul. There is no objectivity stating picasso is superior to your cousin. I also shudder at the fact you call your cousin retarded, have you such little respect for other human beings that you would stoop as low as insulting one of your own relatives? And don't give me some long essay about epistemic justification, because frankly, I have no interest in taking anything you say seriously anymore, you're just an *** with an inflated ego.

Wait.  What about your opinion that something is good contra my opinion that something is bad?  Surely you can logically state how they are unequal, and not only that, but in your favor.  Not that you would be able to do that within the regressive, naive framework of "logic" you've set up.  How is it that you can be so idiotic in such a short sentence?  Usually it takes a lot more effort to evince such a lack of basic, human understanding.  Most animals have to try harder than you did.

Unlike you, I don't think my opinion is worth anymore than anyone else's, I have respect for my fellow human being. Here you go again not making a substantial argument, instead opting for the easier insult. I really hope someone of much higher intelligence than yourself puts you in your place you self obsessed, condescending, egotistic ***.

Why don't you go crawl back to youtube and find a bunch of stuff you don't understand and call it "elite"?  Seems like the sort of thing that probably takes up a lot of your time.  By the way, what's the cutoff?  You've got a lot of Nickelback and. . . I don't know. . . Green Day in your favorites there, right?  Because it would be elite not to.  To have the opinion that something is worse than something else would be elite, and make you elite o_O  Say it: "I like Nickelback, who are as good as Beethoven."  Say it.  Unless you're a hypocrite (which you are).

I do not like Nickelback, or Greenday, yet do I demean their efforts? No. They have fans, their art has touched people, therefore it has done something right. More than you'll ever do. Would I say that Nickelback are objectively inferior to Beethoven? No. Would I say I prefer Beethoven? Yes.

I mean, come on, kid.  You're the elitist.  You're the one who thinks his opinion is worth more than it is, because you think it's worth as much as someone else's.  The assumption that all opinions are created equal. . . THAT is elitism.  If I brought the entire piano and musicology departments in here from Moscow Conservatory, Paris Conservatoire, Curtis and Juilliard and they all said that Berman's was the best, then you come up in here and say that you like what Maksim did with Mazeppa, you're the one overvaluing your opinion when you think it's as valuable as theirs.  They're not being "elitist" by being smarter/more knowledgeable than you.  That just makes them elite.  You do know what "elite" really means, right?  It means better than you.  Get used to this fact: your opinion is not as important as others.  I'm not even going to go there as far as whether your opinion or my opinion is more important, but your train of logic doesn't even allow for the discussion, which makes it asinine.

I bet you if you got all of them people, they'd have differing opinions. And that's really the crux of this whole thing, isn't it? The very fact you use this as an example proves what I say, you believe your opinions to be facts. Now I know you'll go on about how it was a hypothetical, and my tiny intellect cannot comprehend a hypothetical situation. But the fact is, I bet you honestly think they'd all be in favour of Berman's interpretation. No, the only reason you won't go down the road of who's opinion is more important is because you'd inevitably say yours, showing you up to be even more of an arse than you already have.

And if you write another long essay for a response, I'm not going to bother replying to it, you bore me.

[john11inc]

And if you write another long essay for a response, I'm not going to bother replying to it, you bore me.

Don't worry; you bore me as well.  But I find myself rather entertaining.  Not being so selfish, however, I'll try to keep the post a bit shorter for you; as you were so gracious to simply repeat yourself for the vast majority of your "response," there is actually quite little material to respond to, so you really didn't have to worry about that.  Pointing out the different errors in your logic regarding how you came to the repetitive conclusions is something I might have done, but I'm just not in the mood for that.  So let's see . . .
 

So let's stop with the patronising and actually talk to me like an equal

this is someone being an ***

And again with the insults

you egotist.

I'll make an effort to reply in a reasonable manner

*** you!

I'm not repeating myself again.

Again, *** you.
 
conceited

I respect the opinions of other people.

I couldn't a crap about our different opinions

Man, can you actually make a coherent argument against someone without insulting them multiple times?

you have no interest in discourse

Screw you.

you are interested in insulting other people

This is really all your post consists of, isn't it?

you're just an *** with an inflated ego.
 
I have respect for my fellow human being.

Here you go again not making a substantial argument, instead opting for the easier insult.

you self obsessed, condescending, egotistic ***.

even more of an arse than you already have.

Really?  You couldn't "a crap"?  How does one "a crap" in the first place?  There seems to be a little bit of conflict there.  And here:

making assumptions

I bet you honestly think

There is no objectivity stating picasso is superior to your cousin.

Dumb, and:

I also shudder at the fact you call your cousin retarded, have you such little respect for other human beings that you would stoop as low as insulting one of your own relatives?

I don't have a cousin.  Also dumb.

First asperger's, and now autism, make up your bloody mind.

Asperger's Syndrome is a form of Autism.  You should really look into it.  Or have your parents look into it, rather.

Would I say that Nickelback are inferior to Beethoven? No.

When your argument requires such a conclusion to support it, maybe you should have looked over your own argument, as opposed to mine.  Also, if I anticipated all of the conclusions that you were going to come to, then weren't my assumptions actually pretty good?  Shouldn't that clue you into the fact that if I can so overwhelmingly understand your "logic" from reading nothing but a single sentence of yours, that you just might be wasting your time?  I was hoping you were smarter, but your post is too stupid to warrant me amplifying in meaningful ways, which I intended to do.  But I know you would be utterly incapable of understanding concepts of implied induction and différance, so it would be too much of a waste of time.

Seriously, get off your high horse, what makes you so superior to me?

All of the above.  Also, the fact that your "sentence" needs a semicolon.  I was going to quote the 300-odd grammatical errors in your post, but that would take up too much room.

[rachfan]

Jorge Bolet--sometimes slightly cautious, but very satisfying overall.

[mephisto]

Happy?

And john:

You really NEED to see a physiatrist

[john11inc]

Happy?

And john:

You really NEED to see a physiatrist

A physiatrist?  What do they do?  I have some sunburn at the moment; can a physiatrist help with that?  You need to actually attempt to argue with me; it would be really funny.  These one word and one sentence replies just make it look like you think that I'm too tough for you.  Which is the case, of course.  Believe me: considering the fact that you're the second person who's said that in this thread alone, it sure as hell doesn't imply wit.  But we do still want to see you make an attempt, at some point.  You know, for the comedic value.

[danhuyle]

Then there's Lugansky, who tosses the Liszt Transcendental Etudes aside effortlessly. Great interpretations too.

[punkpianist360]

John11inch, you are officially a badass, and I mean that in the most respect. 

Sincerely,
The Prat

[omar_roy]

Regarding your choice of words, "elitist" is so philistine, pedestrian, plebeian etc.

I'm in stitches.

[michel dvorsky]

Berman's 1958 Melodiya recording is justly famous, and is certainly my favorite set overall. The set closest to my heart is probably Arrau's Philips set.  If you don't like it, that's fine. But there's a reason it's famous: first rate artistry, gorgeous tone, and blistering technique (especially for a man who is around 70). 

Aside from Berman and Arrau, honourable mentions to Richter & Ashkenazy in Feux Follets, Kultyshev in 'Chasse Neige', Berezovsky in 'Vision', von Sauer in 'Ricordanza', and Kentner in 'Harmonies'.  Berman deserves a special achievement award for tearing stuff up in no. 2.

[casaet]

Horowitz!
casaet

[madvillain]

listen to this version of harmonies du soir it's sooo beautiful!

[cygnusdei]

Berezovsky. And that's a fact.

[retrouvailles]

Vladimir Ovchinikov. Don't disagree and say that so-and-so is better until you've heard this one. It's mind blowing.

[minor9th]

Adam Neiman is playing all 12 in a concert on April 16th. Looking forward to it. (I'm not saying he's "the best", but one doesn't get to hear all 12 too often. His rendition of No.10 seems OK.)

[lohshuhan]

digging up an old topic here, but here's my take.. 

The first and second spots for my best Liszt TE are taken by Vladimir Ovchinnikov and Lazar Berman. 

Third spot is Cziffra. 

[pianoden]

Definitely Ovchinnikov's, with Berman's coming a very close second. I find mostly everyone's else (Berezovsky, Cziffra, Arrau...) to be quite uneven.  I remember liking Bolet's being quite nice too, but it's been a while. Definitely can't go wrong with the first two.

[liszt_ani_rach]

Boris Berezovsky's performance is the best. He played all 12 etudes perfectly in one sit. No one could have the stamina to do something like him.

[danhuyle]

I heard Alice Sara Ott's recording of the Liszt Transcendental Etudes is exceptionally good. Has anyone here listened to it?

I'm watching Nickolai Lugansky's performance and I get blown away by his performance.

[pianoplayjl]

Cziffra and Berezovsky.