Hough Thoughts

[arri bachrach]

There has been talk about Hough's recent recordings of Rachmaninoff
concertos.
I heard him in recital in NYC 5-7 years ago and was thoroughly
disappointed. However, I learned since then not to COMPLETELY judge a
performer from a single listen. I have many pirates of Volodos
recitals where he plays similar programs a number of times and even
a super pianist like. V. has his lesser days both musically and even
technically.
However, I see my initial impressions were correct concerning Hough.
Just finished a session with his Rach PC4...... Now there is no
denying that he is a fleet and facile pianist. However ,that is as far
as it goes.
In a piece like this, one has to able to shape chords and strike them
so that they have a certain grandeur. The beauty of the piece lies
mainly in the chords, especially in the 2nd movt. His sound is rather
shallow, there is no "bigness" to his approach and for me the musical
sensuality of those gorgeous chords are completely ignored in Hough's
hands. SFAIAC, this lack tells us all about his ear.....
One only has to listen to Michelangeli's recording of the same
concerto to hear the difference.

I have to assume, though I may be wrong that the rest of the concertos
suffer from the same deficiencies as mentioned above...

AB

[David Hurwitz]

In article <***@posting.google.com>, arri bachrach
says...

Post by arri bachrach
In a piece like this, one has to able to shape chords and strike them
so that they have a certain grandeur. {etc}

If one has a view of the music as narrow as yours is, then it may be that you
have a point. I would note, however, that there are those of us who give
importance to criteria as phrasing, balance between the hands, clarity of
articulation, attention to the linearity and lean sonority characteristic of
late Rachmaninov, the fact that in a concerto the contribution of the conductor
and orchestra is often as important as that of the soloist, and the fact that
the relationship and dialog between the soloist and orchestra in furthering the
musical argument is as important (if not more so) than the chord-sonority of the
soloist alone. To condemn the performance on the basis of such a limited view of
Hough's pianism (as well as of how the music expresses itself) strikes me as
about as useful as dismissing the value of an otherwise superb performance of
Puccini's The Girl of the Golden West because you do not like the singing of the
character playing the Indian woman Wowkel. Chacun a son gout!

David Hurwitz

[Dan Koren]

Post by David Hurwitz
says...

Post by arri bachrach
In a piece like this, one has to able to shape chords and strike them
so that they have a certain grandeur. {etc}

If one has a view of the music as narrow as yours is, then it may be that you
have a point. I would note, however, that there are those of us who give
importance to criteria as phrasing, balance between the hands, clarity of
articulation, attention to the linearity and lean sonority characteristic of
late Rachmaninov, the fact that in a concerto the contribution of the conductor
and orchestra is often as important as that of the soloist, and the fact that
the relationship and dialog between the soloist and orchestra in furthering the
musical argument is as important (if not more so) than the chord-sonority of the
soloist alone.

Point well taken.

However, Hough fails all the other tests as well.



dk

[David Hurwitz]

Post by Dan Koren

Post by David Hurwitz
says...

Post by arri bachrach
In a piece like this, one has to able to shape chords and strike them
so that they have a certain grandeur. {etc}

If one has a view of the music as narrow as yours is, then it may be that you
have a point. I would note, however, that there are those of us who give
importance to criteria as phrasing, balance between the hands, clarity of
articulation, attention to the linearity and lean sonority characteristic of
late Rachmaninov, the fact that in a concerto the contribution of the conductor
and orchestra is often as important as that of the soloist, and the fact that
the relationship and dialog between the soloist and orchestra in furthering the
musical argument is as important (if not more so) than the chord-sonority of the
soloist alone.

Point well taken.
However, Hough fails all the other tests as well.
dk

You need a new set of ears.

(Gee, it's fun working at your level. Now I understand why you do it so often.
OK, back to adulthood.)

David Hurwitz

[Richard Schultz]

In article <***@drn.newsguy.com>, David Hurwitz <***@newsguy.com> wrote:

: You need a new set of ears.

Now *that's* funny (considering the source). I have to admit, I never
really believed that you had a sense of humor.

I've never made any secret of the many cases in which my taste in pianists
and pianism differs from Dan Koren's lack of the same, but in the case of
Hough, I tend to agree with him. I heard Hough do the Saint-Saens #2
live with the Israel Philharmonic, and really came away with the impression
that there's no there there.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska

[graham]

Post by Richard Schultz
I heard Hough do the Saint-Saens #2
live with the Israel Philharmonic, and really came away with the impression
that there's no there there.

But surely, that's the fault of the music in this case. S-S #2 is, after
all, little better than muzak;-)
Graham

[Richard Schultz]

In article <ItFrd.395415$***@pd7tw1no>, graham <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
: "Richard Schultz" <***@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
: news:com9s9$bi6$***@news.iucc.ac.il...
:> In article <***@drn.newsguy.com>, David Hurwitz
:> <***@newsguy.com> wrote:

:> I heard Hough do the Saint-Saens #2
:> live with the Israel Philharmonic, and really came away with the
:> impression that there's no there there.

: But surely, that's the fault of the music in this case. S-S #2 is, after
: all, little better than muzak;-)

My feeling is that once Arthur Rubinstein recorded it, there wasn't much
point in anyone else bothering to play it. But if you *are* going to
play it, then you'd better be prepared to do some serious barn-burning.
Hough was way too prissy and not nearly technically accurate enough
(at least in the performance I attended).

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .

[Andrew T. Kay]

Post by graham

Post by Richard Schultz
I heard Hough do the Saint-Saens #2
live with the Israel Philharmonic, and really came away with the impression
that there's no there there.

But surely, that's the fault of the music in this case. S-S #2 is, after
all, little better than muzak;-)

Well, I have no use for any Muzak as I understand it to be deffined, but I love
Saint-Saëns. Rachmaninoff, on the other hand, you can keep.

--Todd K

[David Hurwitz]

Post by Richard Schultz
: You need a new set of ears.
Now *that's* funny (considering the source). I have to admit, I never
really believed that you had a sense of humor.
I've never made any secret of the many cases in which my taste in pianists
and pianism differs from Dan Koren's lack of the same, but in the case of
Hough, I tend to agree with him. I heard Hough do the Saint-Saens #2
live with the Israel Philharmonic, and really came away with the impression
that there's no there there.

I reviewed his complete set of Saint-Saens PCs and was also unimpressed, and
said so. It caused a big stink with Hyperion too; they were quite upset. So I
was not prepared for the excellence of his Rachmaninov, but as Mr. Koren said,
all we can do is take each recording on its own (perceived) merits. I also don't
think you can judge any artist based on one or two encounters, whether in
concert or on disc, especially today when recordings are made seemingly at the
drop of a hat, irrespective of the need to fill a real gap in the catalog or
some obvious affinity between artists and repertoire. But I think Hough is a
serious artist with something to say in most everything I have heard him play,
even when I dislike the results. He's thoughtful, intelligent, and technically
very well equipped. Hyperion is right to stand by him.

David Hurwitz

[Andrew T. Kay]

Post by Richard Schultz
I heard Hough do the Saint-Saens #2

Post by Richard Schultz
live with the Israel Philharmonic, and really came away with the impression
that there's no there there.

I reviewed his complete set of Saint-Saens PCs and was also unimpressed, and
said so. It caused a big stink with Hyperion too; they were quite upset.

I'll bet. Thanks for that review, nevertheless. I remember it as detailed and
persuasive, and it helped me decide that I was well off with Darré and Collard
for complete sets (I believe I still have Rogé too, but don't like it as much),
in addition to various stand-alone performances of 2, 4 and 5. It was
gratifying to read a review that didn't treat this charming, elegant, clever,
and colorful music with even a hint of condescension. Too often I see critics
falling all over themselves within the first few sentences (if not the whole
review) to let their readers know they're aware they're reviewing "surface
music," as if everything has to be Beethoven or Brahms (etc.), and often they
seem insensitive to the different ways the music can be put across, so that I
don't come away knowing much about the performance(s). A sense of style counts
for so much in this repertoire (as it does in anything, I suppose).

--Todd K

[David Hurwitz]

In article <***@mb-m03.aol.com>, Andrew T. Kay says...
Too often I see critics

Post by Andrew T. Kay
falling all over themselves within the first few sentences (if not the whole
review) to let their readers know they're aware they're reviewing "surface
music," as if everything has to be Beethoven or Brahms (etc.), and often they
seem insensitive to the different ways the music can be put across, so that I
don't come away knowing much about the performance(s). A sense of style counts
for so much in this repertoire (as it does in anything, I suppose).
--Todd K

I think Saint-Saens generally is a very fine, under-appreciated composer (partly
because he wrote a lot of music and so little of it is well known and well
performed), and that the piano concertos are terribly under-valued. If you get a
chance, try to hear the new Malikova/Sanderling performances on Audite. They are
anything but "surface music"--they show what can be done if the concertos are
played with the same care and attention to detail we expect from Mozart or
Beethoven. Saint-Saens was in some ways a musician's musician (for me anyway).
That is, for all their surface sheen, his piano concertos require not so much
flash and dazzle as good, basic musical values: even scales, a good trill, tight
rhythm and elegant phrasing from the soloist, and a real partnership with the
orchestra.

If you listen carefully to even as light and "fluffy" a movement as the middle
one from the Second Piano Concerto, you can hear countless subtleties of color
in the accompaniment and a genuinely witty dialog between the soloist and the
various orchestral sections. This is concerto writing in the true classical
style despite the formal originality, and very few performances manage to
balance an awareness of the large scale, often adventurous treatment of form,
against the classically stylized solo and orchestral writing, with complete
success. But they are marvelous works. They are also quite difficult, especially
the Fourth and Fifth concertos. I've played in both several times (timpani), and
they can give even seasoned virtuosos a lot of trouble, not least because they
have to sound easy even when they aren't.

I'm glad you enjoy them, and I agree that it's a shame they aren't respected
more, and that those who love them often find themselves forced on the
defensive. Naturally one may like or dislike what one chooses, but their musical
qualities would, I would hope, be self-evident to those who claim to care about
such things, even if the style and expression inevitably won't please everyone.

David Hurwitz

[Jim Logan]

David, is the soloist Anna Malikova?

Post by David Hurwitz
I think Saint-Saens generally is a very fine, under-appreciated composer (partly
because he wrote a lot of music and so little of it is well known and well
performed), and that the piano concertos are terribly under-valued. If you get a
chance, try to hear the new Malikova/Sanderling performances on Audite. They are
anything but "surface music"--they show what can be done if the concertos are
played with the same care and attention to detail we expect from Mozart or
Beethoven. Saint-Saens was in some ways a musician's musician (for me anyway).
That is, for all their surface sheen, his piano concertos require not so much
flash and dazzle as good, basic musical values: even scales, a good trill, tight
rhythm and elegant phrasing from the soloist, and a real partnership with the
orchestra.
If you listen carefully to even as light and "fluffy" a movement as the middle
one from the Second Piano Concerto, you can hear countless subtleties of color
in the accompaniment and a genuinely witty dialog between the soloist and the
various orchestral sections. This is concerto writing in the true classical
style despite the formal originality, and very few performances manage to
balance an awareness of the large scale, often adventurous treatment of form,
against the classically stylized solo and orchestral writing, with complete
success. But they are marvelous works. They are also quite difficult, especially
the Fourth and Fifth concertos. I've played in both several times (timpani), and
they can give even seasoned virtuosos a lot of trouble, not least because they
have to sound easy even when they aren't.
I'm glad you enjoy them, and I agree that it's a shame they aren't respected
more, and that those who love them often find themselves forced on the
defensive. Naturally one may like or dislike what one chooses, but their musical
qualities would, I would hope, be self-evident to those who claim to care about
such things, even if the style and expression inevitably won't please everyone.
David Hurwitz

Jim Logan

[Dave Cook]

Post by David Hurwitz
I reviewed his complete set of Saint-Saens PCs and was also unimpressed, and
said so. It caused a big stink with Hyperion too; they were quite upset.

How do they express this? I notice that ASV got a clue and stopped sending
in Lindsay recordings in for review.

Dave Cook

[David Hurwitz]

Post by Dave Cook

Post by David Hurwitz
I reviewed his complete set of Saint-Saens PCs and was also unimpressed, and
said so. It caused a big stink with Hyperion too; they were quite upset.

How do they express this? I notice that ASV got a clue and stopped sending
in Lindsay recordings in for review.
Dave Cook

No, actually we stopped reviewing the Lindsays. The recordings kept coming, and
still do, but having trashed a bunch of them, what's the point in keeping it up?
It just results in overkill and time wasted which could be better spent on more
interesting discs that we would enjoy covering and which we think readers would
enjoy hearing about far more. On the other hand, if we get a reissue of some
earlier stuff that we like, then we may cover that because it provides a
different perspective. They weren't always awful, after all. It was a late
development, and I wouldn't mind reviewing some of their better Haydn discs, for
example, that predated our launch.

As for Hyperion, they take great pride in their work, and rightly so--they are a
marvelous label. This project was particularly close to their hearts. It had
received lots of good press elsewhere, and so we stood out as atypical. It
happens, and we understood why they felt justified in reacting negatively; but
as in all such cases when you are dealing with sane people (not something you
can count on), we ultimately agreed to disagree and move on. That's the nature
of the business.

David Hurwitz

[Tom Deacon]

Post by David Hurwitz
I reviewed his complete set of Saint-Saens PCs and was also unimpressed, and
said so. It caused a big stink with Hyperion too; they were quite upset.

They were not as upset as I was when I first had the misfortune of
listening to that loathsome set of Saint-Saens concerti. Gramophone
Award indeed! Utter nonsense.

The playing was dry, mechanical, and without any indication of
musicality. It was, in fact, cynical in the extreme on the part of the
pianist. As for the orchestra, it is clearly bush league stuff, and I
do not refer to the much hated current inhabitant of the White House.

Neither conductor nor pianist had the slightest appreciation for the
music they were playing.

In other words, a disaster and a disgrace which do no credit
whatsoever to the Hyperion label.

As for their Rachmaninoff, I have not heard it, although I may before
I leave Paris. But I shall prepare myself in advance, of course.

TD

[arri bachrach]

Post by Richard Schultz
: You need a new set of ears.
Now *that's* funny (considering the source). I have to admit, I never
really believed that you had a sense of humor.
I've never made any secret of the many cases in which my taste in pianists
and pianism differs from Dan Koren's lack of the same, but in the case of
Hough, I tend to agree with him. I heard Hough do the Saint-Saens #2
live with the Israel Philharmonic, and really came away with the impression
that there's no there there.

so what....... so long as the expert Hurwitz thinks something is there, thats it...

AB

[Dan Koren]

Post by Richard Schultz
: You need a new set of ears.
Now *that's* funny (considering the source). I have to admit, I never
really believed that you had a sense of humor.
I've never made any secret of the many cases in which my taste in pianists
and pianism differs from Dan Koren's lack of the same, but in the case of
Hough, I tend to agree with him. I heard Hough do the Saint-Saens #2
live with the Israel Philharmonic, and really came away with the impression
that there's no there there.

Take note of the subtlety:

He does not agree with me.

He merely "tends to agree".

Is he worrying he might be
fined like the Deacon?



dk

[arri bachrach]

Post by David Hurwitz

Post by arri bachrach
In a piece like this, one has to able to shape chords and strike them
so that they have a certain grandeur. {etc}

If one has a view of the music as narrow as yours is, then it may be that you
have a point.

FYI..... I doubt very seriously that I have a "narrow view of THE
music" or of music in general.( those who know me personally know
better) I suspect that you think you have a large view, but that is
mostly a mirage......

I would note, however, that there are those of us who give

Post by David Hurwitz
importance to criteria as phrasing, balance between the hands, clarity of
articulation, attention to the linearity and lean sonority characteristic of
late Rachmaninov, the fact that in a concerto the contribution of the conductor
and orchestra is often as important as that of the soloist, and the fact that
the relationship and dialog between the soloist and orchestra in furthering the
musical argument is as important (if not more so) than the chord-sonority of the
soloist alone.

reading the above comments I am struck by the paucity of any substance
related to my specific comments. Using common language which is about
what the above deserves, your words are very high class bullshit.....
Mr. H., having read many of your contributions I note that you write
very well, as most music critics do but use formulistic phrases.
I am an professioal bassoonist as well as a very good pianist. I know
all about
articulation, phrasing, linearity (nonsense word) etc.
I deal with those issues when I play in orchestras....

HOROWITZ ARE YOU A PERFROMING MUSICIAN?????????

Yes, the orchestra plays well enough but I am MAINLY concerned about
the soloist..

To condemn

it is not "condemned"..... it is more like dammed......

the performance on the basis of such a limited view of

Post by David Hurwitz
Hough's pianism (as well as of how the music expresses itself) strikes me as
about as useful as dismissing the value of an otherwise superb performance of
Puccini's The Girl of the Golden West because you do not like the singing of the
character playing the Indian woman Wowkel. Chacun a son gout!
David Hurwitz

the above again displays your superb use of English and I assume
French but you say nothing..... just a dribble of pomposity.


AB

[David Hurwitz]

In article <***@posting.google.com>, arri bachrach
says...

Post by arri bachrach
the above again displays your superb use of English and I assume
French but you say nothing..... just a dribble of pomposity.
AB

A bassoonist, eh? That explains everything, while at the same time very nicely
proving exactly my point. Enough said.

David Hurwitz

[arri bachrach]

Post by David Hurwitz
says...

Post by arri bachrach
the above again displays your superb use of English and I assume
French but you say nothing..... just a dribble of pomposity.
AB

A bassoonist, eh? That explains everything, while at the same time very nicely
proving exactly my point. Enough said.
David Hurwitz

have a suspicion that Hurwitz could not hear the difference between a
bassoon and tuba,(nor does he really want to) :-)

AB

[Dave Cook]

Post by arri bachrach
HOROWITZ ARE YOU A PERFROMING MUSICIAN?????????

Oh, my god, I can't think of a worse insult than confusing someone with
David Horowitz :p. Not even Hurwitz at his worst deserves that.

Dave Cook

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by Dave Cook

Post by arri bachrach
HOROWITZ ARE YOU A PERFROMING MUSICIAN?????????

Oh, my god, I can't think of a worse insult than confusing someone with
David Horowitz :p. Not even Hurwitz at his worst deserves that.
Dave Cook

Which David Horowitz, the neocon one or the consumer advocate?

[arri bachrach]

Post by Dave Cook

Post by arri bachrach
HOROWITZ ARE YOU A PERFROMING MUSICIAN?????????

Oh, my god, I can't think of a worse insult than confusing someone with
David Horowitz :p. Not even Hurwitz at his worst deserves that.
Dave Cook

if I owe Horowitz an apology , please let me know.

AB

[Ssg217]

Post by Dave Cook
Oh, my god, I can't think of a worse insult than confusing someone with
David Horowitz :p

Not to worry about the level of the discussion. The name of Michael Moore
hasn't been pronounced yet. ( :

regards,
SG

[Ssg217]

Post by arri bachrach
I am an professioal bassoonist as well as a very good pianist. I know
all about
articulation, phrasing, linearity

All? Do you take students ?? How much do you charge per lesson???

Post by arri bachrach
HOROWITZ ARE YOU A PERFROMING MUSICIAN?????????

I think it can be assumed with relative safety that Horowitz is, well, was a
performing musician. Whether he knew it all or half of it wasn't established
yet. ( :

regards,
SG

[arri bachrach]

Post by Ssg217

Post by arri bachrach
I am an professioal bassoonist as well as a very good pianist. I know
all about
articulation, phrasing, linearity

All?

yes, all and more...

Do you take students ?? How much do you charge per lesson???

more than you can afford :-))))

I take students AND drugs.....

Post by Ssg217

Post by arri bachrach
HOROWITZ ARE YOU A PERFROMING MUSICIAN?????????

I think it can be assumed with relative safety that Horowitz is, well, was a
performing musician. Whether he knew it all or half of it wasn't established

I think he was a PRE-forming musician:-)

AB

Post by Ssg217
regards,
SG

[Ssg217]

Post by arri bachrach

Post by arri bachrach
I am an professioal bassoonist as well as a very good pianist. I know
all about
articulation, phrasing, linearity

All?

yes, all and more...

More than *all*? Goodness, poor Mr. Hurwitz was arguing with God and didn't
even know it !!

regards,
SG

[David Hurwitz]

Post by Ssg217
More than *all*? Goodness, poor Mr. Hurwitz was arguing with God and didn't
even know it !!
regards,
SG

Yet another point in favor of atheism.

David Hurwitz

[Derek Haslam]

Post by Ssg217
More than *all*? Goodness, poor Mr. Hurwitz was arguing
with God and didn't even know it !!

Ah, but the drugs account for it!

Derek Haslam

[arri bachrach]

Post by Ssg217

Post by arri bachrach

Post by arri bachrach
I am an professioal bassoonist as well as a very good pianist. I know
all about
articulation, phrasing, linearity

All?

yes, all and more...

More than *all*? Goodness, poor Mr. Hurwitz was arguing with God and didn't
even know it !!
regards,
SG

thats true, and when I was arguing with him I made the *same* mistake:-)

AB

[Gerrie Collins]

Post by arri bachrach
There has been talk about Hough's recent recordings of Rachmaninoff
concertos.
I heard him in recital in NYC 5-7 years ago and was thoroughly
disappointed. However, I learned since then not to COMPLETELY judge a
performer from a single listen. I have many pirates of Volodos
recitals where he plays similar programs a number of times and even
a super pianist like. V. has his lesser days both musically and even
technically.
However, I see my initial impressions were correct concerning Hough.
Just finished a session with his Rach PC4...... Now there is no
denying that he is a fleet and facile pianist. However ,that is as far
as it goes.
In a piece like this, one has to able to shape chords and strike them
so that they have a certain grandeur. The beauty of the piece lies
mainly in the chords, especially in the 2nd movt. His sound is rather
shallow, there is no "bigness" to his approach and for me the musical
sensuality of those gorgeous chords are completely ignored in Hough's
hands. SFAIAC, this lack tells us all about his ear.....
One only has to listen to Michelangeli's recording of the same
concerto to hear the difference.
I have to assume, though I may be wrong that the rest of the concertos
suffer from the same deficiencies as mentioned above...
AB

Bravo Arri! You are 'getting to be' so much more voluble, specific,
and revelatory of your immense listening background and aural acuity.
[Though I disagree with you on *some* of your pronouncements. :-) ]

Gerrie

[arri bachrach]

Post by Gerrie Collins

Post by arri bachrach
I have to assume, though I may be wrong that the rest of the concertos
suffer from the same deficiencies as mentioned above...
AB

Bravo Arri! You are 'getting to be' so much more voluble,

Ms. Collins

Thank you very much for your perceptive remarks:-))) I will gracefully
accept your description of me as being "voluble" but at this stage of
my life am I still VALUABLE :-)

I will permit you to have a LIMITED number of disagreements with some
of my views, but please keep these to a minimum..... we have to
protect fragile egos.

AB


specific,

Post by Gerrie Collins
and revelatory of your immense listening background and aural acuity.
[Though I disagree with you on *some* of your pronouncements. :-) ]
Gerrie

[David Hurwitz]

In article <***@posting.google.com>, arri bachrach
says...
we have to

Post by arri bachrach
protect fragile egos.
AB

So we've noticed.

Dave Hurwitz

[Richard Schultz]

In article <***@drn.newsguy.com>, David Hurwitz <***@newsguy.com> wrote:

:>protect fragile egos.

: So we've noticed.

Well, you do have the advantage that the Rockies may tumble and Gibraltar
may crumble -- they're only made of clay -- before anything can do anything
that might harm an ego the size of yours.

Some of us are both easily amused and sufficiently intelligent to draw
the obvious conclusions from your refusal to answer DelMarva LaPoule's
questions about your musical background.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

[Andrys Basten]

Post by Richard Schultz
:>protect fragile egos.
: So we've noticed.
Well, you do have the advantage that the Rockies may tumble and Gibraltar
may crumble -- they're only made of clay -- before anything can do anything
that might harm an ego the size of yours.
Some of us are both easily amused and sufficiently intelligent to draw
the obvious conclusions from your refusal to answer DelMarva LaPoule's
questions about your musical background.
-----

From some years ago, I think David posted that he
played percussion in an orchestra.

At any rate, it's a question to ignore, since if we required,
from posters with negative opinions we don't like, that people be
high-level performing musicians personally familiar with the
performing probs of their chosen instrument, we'd have extremely
few people carrying on here. And certainly they couldn't then
be taken seriously if opining about someone who plays an instrument
they don't.

What's the point of listener discussion forums if it descends
to this? Instrumentalists of high caliber differ enormously
in their reaction to other musicians' playing.


- Andrys

[Richard Schultz]

In article <comt2j$98b$***@reader1.panix.com>, Andrys Basten <***@panix.com> wrote:

: At any rate, it's a question to ignore, since if we required,
: from posters with negative opinions we don't like, that people be
: high-level performing musicians personally familiar with the
: performing probs of their chosen instrument, we'd have extremely
: few people carrying on here.

I've never made that demand of anyone. In this specific case, David
Hurwitz has set himself up as an expert, and it is only fair to ask
what are his qualifications that support his claim.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."

[Wayne Reimer]

Post by Richard Schultz
: At any rate, it's a question to ignore, since if we required,
: from posters with negative opinions we don't like, that people be
: high-level performing musicians personally familiar with the
: performing probs of their chosen instrument, we'd have extremely
: few people carrying on here.
I've never made that demand of anyone. In this specific case, David
Hurwitz has set himself up as an expert, and it is only fair to ask
what are his qualifications that support his claim.

Only Hurwitz? What about arri's absurd suggestion that his status as a
professional musician means he has any special insight. After all, Hough is
also a professional musician, and we know what arri thinks of *him*.

wr

[Dan Koren]

Post by Richard Schultz
: At any rate, it's a question to ignore, since if we required,
: from posters with negative opinions we don't like, that people be
: high-level performing musicians personally familiar with the
: performing probs of their chosen instrument, we'd have extremely
: few people carrying on here.
I've never made that demand of anyone. In this specific case, David
Hurwitz has set himself up as an expert, and it is only fair to ask
what are his qualifications that support his claim.

his writings.... ;-)



dk

PS. just like mark twain... ;-)

[arri bachrach]

Post by Richard Schultz
:>protect fragile egos.

Post by Richard Schultz
: So we've noticed.
Well, you do have the advantage that the Rockies may tumble and Gibraltar
may crumble -- they're only made of clay -- before anything can do anything
that might harm an ego the size of yours.
Some of us are both easily amused and sufficiently intelligent to draw
the obvious conclusions from your refusal to answer DelMarva LaPoule's
questions about your musical background.
-----

From some years ago, I think David posted that he
played percussion in an orchestra.

no doubt the cymbals, bass drum..... he surely does not have enuf of
an ear to tune the tympani....

Post by Richard Schultz
At any rate, it's a question to ignore, since if we required,
from posters with negative opinions we don't like, that people be
high-level performing musicians personally familiar with the
performing probs of their chosen instrument, we'd have extremely
few people carrying on here. And certainly they couldn't then
be taken seriously if opining about someone who plays an instrument
they don't.
What's the point of listener discussion forums if it descends
to this? Instrumentalists of high caliber differ enormously
in their reaction to other musicians' playing.
- Andrys

as usual, Andrys makes trouble trying to be a mediator... I feel that
Hurwitz is a high caliber musical fraud and that comes from an
"instrumentalist of high caliber: :-)

AB

[Andrys Basten]

Post by arri bachrach
no doubt the cymbals, bass drum..... he surely does not have enuf of
an ear to tune the tympani....

In fact, it was the tympani, and I prefer his more detailed
reviews to oversimplified putdowns designed just to raise
the ego of the putdowner :-)

Post by arri bachrach

Post by Andrys Basten
At any rate, it's a question to ignore, since if we required,
from posters with negative opinions we don't like, that people be
high-level performing musicians personally familiar with the
performing probs of their chosen instrument, we'd have extremely
few people carrying on here. And certainly they couldn't then
be taken seriously if opining about someone who plays an instrument
they don't.
What's the point of listener discussion forums if it descends
to this? Instrumentalists of high caliber differ enormously
in their reaction to other musicians' playing.
- Andrys

as usual, Andrys makes trouble trying to be a mediator...

No mediation at all, just my honest opinion about the ridiculous
assertion that a particular musical background will give someone
the authority to make bald assertions while others won't.

My last paragraph above stands.

Post by arri bachrach
I feel that
Hurwitz is a high caliber musical fraud and that comes from an
"instrumentalist of high caliber: :-)

People who will never be known for their music making
go to town on people who are known for theirs. It's an old story.

The thing is, opinions vary tremendously, among people who know music
well. To castigate others as frauds for their strong opinions (so
nicely prevalent here, which is one reason we like to come here)
or even 'ignorant' shows only an extremely narrow view that tends to
go backwards).

It's one thing to post denunciations of solo instrumentalists, based
on a background of playing in an mostly unknown orchestrar, it's another
thing to really believe this counts hugely against others' opinions.
Nor does it matter to anyone awake what one orchestra member in a major
orchestra thinks if it is constantly quoted as authority. After
being around so many orchestra members in a well-known orchestra,
I know how differently they will tend to feel about a performance
and performer.

Now, clearly I'm not 'mediating' but speaking my opinion and please
watch the blood pressure :-)

PS - Am still not in audience-listening mode, even for favorite
players but will listen/watch soon what you sent recently. Thanks.

- Andrys

[a***@att.net]

In case you have not noticed, I dont need to put down an entity such as
"haughty" Hurwitz to salvage my weakend ego:-)
You confuse quality with quantity.... yes HH writes VERY well and I
respect him for that.
So far as "putdowns" are concerned, HH has put me down with out
justification.....
He feels that only HIS opinions are correct, ( I never had that
attitude):-))

So far as what I sent you, I expect you to listen very soon...
AB

PS take care of your blood pressure

[Tom Deacon]

Post by Richard Schultz
:>protect fragile egos.
: So we've noticed.
Well, you do have the advantage that the Rockies may tumble and Gibraltar
may crumble -- they're only made of clay -- before anything can do anything
that might harm an ego the size of yours.
Some of us are both easily amused and sufficiently intelligent to draw
the obvious conclusions from your refusal to answer DelMarva LaPoule's
questions about your musical background.

What background?

In any case, the foreground is already enough, isn't it?

TD

[Thomas Muething]

Post by arri bachrach
There has been talk about Hough's recent recordings of Rachmaninoff
concertos.

I bought these back to back with the 2nd and 3rd by Konstantin
Scherbakov on Naxos-SACD, and on the whole I prefer the Russian
recording. Hough's playing is nimble enough, and it's elegantly
performed, but he just isn't "big guns". Also, the orchestral sound is
not all that well recorded (far too much reverberance), there is no
engineer credited (strange for Hyperion). Scherbakov is as good a
player, and his orchestra has more muscle. The Dallas SO are very
polished, but play unidiomatically.

Why Dave Hurwitz chose to name this the number one set among fierce
competition I'll never know. It certainly isn't evident from the
music-making.

Thomas

[M. Bartnik]

"Thomas Muething" <tmuetBUGGER-OFF-***@t-online.de> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:cos5l3$130$01$1

Post by Thomas Muething

Post by arri bachrach
There has been talk about Hough's recent recordings of Rachmaninoff
concertos.

I bought these back to back with the 2nd and 3rd by Konstantin
Scherbakov on Naxos-SACD, and on the whole I prefer the Russian
recording.

I don't. Some weeks ago I bought the Scherbakov recordings (on SACD) and was
very much disappointed. All the notes are there, yes - you can't say
Scherbakov isn't an able pianist with a fine technique - but nothing more.
If his slow, note-spelling approach works rather well with the 2nd concerto
where he succeeds in getting across lots of nuances, especially in the
second movement, it doesn't work at all with the third. Slush,
over-romanticized, wallowing-in-sound playing, nothing of the fire and
sparkle that other pianists can get out of this work (Rachmaninov himself
comes to my mind, along with Argerich and Horowitz). I agree that he has
tried a different approach, no guns-blazing-virtuoso barn-storming - but he
falls woefully short of convincing me with it. If you care to play your
Rach2 and 3 slowly, do it like Ashkenazy (on his older recording, recently
reissued on Decca legends).

Post by Thomas Muething
Hough's playing is nimble enough, and it's elegantly
performed, but he just isn't "big guns".

The second concerto - set aside the strangely fast beginning that doesn't
respect the score at all - is excellently played, in my opinion. Hough has
all the technique you need to play that concerto, and to play it
impressively. I do not really know what is "big guns" for you, but to my
ears there's no power, punch or build-up of climaxes missing in Hough's
playing. All to the contrary, I find his version one of the most convincing,
daring and thrilling performances I heard during the last years (I still
speak of the second concerto here).

As for the third, this one doesn't work as well, at least for me. Hough is
fast, as fast as Argerich or Horowitz or Katsaris, but it sounds rushed. He
doesn't take the time to slow down a little from time to time, something
that's needed to convey a sense of drama. I often get the impression he is
tumbling over himself, or rather over his fingers, although no notes are
missing. Too fleet-fingered for me, and I'm not speaking of pure speed here.

Post by Thomas Muething
Also, the orchestral sound is
not all that well recorded (far too much reverberance),

That is not my impression at all. NB: I have the SACD version of this
recording, so it may sound differently if you have the normal CD-version. I
won't go as far as saying the orchestra sound is excellent - there are DG
recordings that have indeed done better - but it is not bad at all. And,
also quite important, the balance between soloist and orchestra is well
done, not a disaster as with the recent Zimerman recording.

As to the sound of the Scherbakov recording (I'm talking about the SACD
multichannel version), it's an unmitigated disaster. Never, and I repeat
never, have I listened to a worse sounding mush of notes. No dynamics, not
spatial placement of orchestra instruments, and even worse, the soloist is
placed so far away by the sonics that most of the time you almost cannot
hear him at all. When I first listened to that recording I didn't believe my
ears, so bad was this one engineered. Clearly the Naxos people have a long
way to go with their multichannel-recordings. Things got better when I
switched to the stereo-layer, although it was far from perfect. But - if you
keep on comparing this recording with the Hough one - there's a world of
difference between the engineered sound only, at least as far as the
respective multichannel-versions are concerned.

Post by Thomas Muething
there is no
engineer credited (strange for Hyperion).

What is rather strange is that you seem to have overlooked it. I do not know
where you bought your version, but either you haven't read the booklet or
you have a different version than I do. Recording engineer was Jeff Mee.

Post by Thomas Muething
Scherbakov is as good a
player, and his orchestra has more muscle. The Dallas SO are very
polished, but play unidiomatically.
Why Dave Hurwitz chose to name this the number one set among fierce
competition I'll never know. It certainly isn't evident from the
music-making.
Thomas

M.B.

[Thomas Muething]

Post by M. Bartnik
The second concerto - set aside the strangely fast beginning that doesn't
respect the score at all - is excellently played, in my opinion. Hough has
all the technique you need to play that concerto, and to play it
impressively. I do not really know what is "big guns" for you, but to my
ears there's no power, punch or build-up of climaxes missing in Hough's
playing. All to the contrary, I find his version one of the most convincing,
daring and thrilling performances I heard during the last years (I still
speak of the second concerto here).

I beg to differ. He lacks power.

Post by M. Bartnik
That is not my impression at all. NB: I have the SACD version of this
recording

Same here.

, so it may sound differently if you have the normal CD-version.

No, it doesn't. SACD-stereo and CD tracks sound exactly the same, as
they should.

Post by M. Bartnik
I
won't go as far as saying the orchestra sound is excellent - there are DG
recordings that have indeed done better - but it is not bad at all.

I didn't say it was bad. It's just not good.

Post by M. Bartnik
As to the sound of the Scherbakov recording (I'm talking about the SACD
multichannel version), it's an unmitigated disaster. Never, and I repeat
never, have I listened to a worse sounding mush of notes. No dynamics, not
spatial placement of orchestra instruments, and even worse, the soloist is
placed so far away by the sonics that most of the time you almost cannot
hear him at all.

Please consider buying decent speakers.

Thomas

[Dan Koren]

Post by Thomas Muething
Please consider buying decent speakers.

Indecent speakers can be far more revealing.



dk

[Thomas Muething]

Post by Dan Koren

Post by Thomas Muething
Please consider buying decent speakers.

Indecent speakers can be far more revealing.

Not crappy multichannel speakers.

Thomas

[Dan Koren]

Post by Thomas Muething

Post by Dan Koren

Post by Thomas Muething
Please consider buying decent speakers.

Indecent speakers can be far more revealing.

Not crappy multichannel speakers.

What would you consider decent?

Do you think horn speakers are
decent or indecent?



dk

[Thomas Muething]

Post by Dan Koren
What would you consider decent?
Do you think horn speakers are
decent or indecent?

It's not a matter of construction, but of quality. I'm using a pair of
horn speakers, among others, myself (Klipsch Reference). They are very
decent, and very revealing.

Thomas

[M. Bartnik]

Post by Thomas Muething
I beg to differ. He lacks power.

Well, we agree to disagree then. To everyone his own taste.

Post by Thomas Muething

Post by M. Bartnik
That is not my impression at all. NB: I have the SACD version of this
recording

Same here.
, so it may sound differently if you have the normal CD-version.
No, it doesn't. SACD-stereo and CD tracks sound exactly the same, as
they should.

How so - "as they should"? I'm not entirely sure you're following what I was
talking about. First of all, with all my previous comments I was referring
to the multichannel-SACD-version (4 channels), not the stereo one; so there
is certainly a difference to any stereo-track. Secondly, there IS a
difference between the SACD-stereo-track and the CD track: On the hybrid CDs
that among others Hyperion are selling there are in fact three versions of
the same piece: one multichannel-version, one high-resolution stereo version
(playable on SACD players only) and the normal PCM-stereo-CD-track. The
second one I mention does sound differently to the CD-track due to its
higher resolution. At least on my system that is the case.

Post by Thomas Muething

Post by M. Bartnik
As to the sound of the Scherbakov recording (I'm talking about the SACD
multichannel version), it's an unmitigated disaster. Never, and I repeat
never, have I listened to a worse sounding mush of notes. No dynamics, not
spatial placement of orchestra instruments, and even worse, the soloist is
placed so far away by the sonics that most of the time you almost cannot
hear him at all.

Please consider buying decent speakers.

With this comment you seem to suppose I do not posses decent speakers. Un
unwarranted supposition, and impolite at the least. I do have speakers that
are quite good, and not some "crappy multichannel speakers" as you wrote in
your next message. However, the Scherbakov recordings does also sound this
way on several high-end-systems I played it on. This said, I read that the
DVD-audio-version of this recording sounds slightly better. And I repeat
that the stereo-version sounds better as well. There is a reviewer who had
the same impression as myself: http://www.classicalcdreview.com/MCDVD23.html
.

Post by Thomas Muething
Thomas

M.B.