Stefan Askenase

[HT]

From Wiki:
"Askenase was born in Lemberg (1896) into a Jewish family. At the age of five he began playing the piano with his mother, a pianist and pupil of Karol Mikuli. He studied with Theodor Pollak, a professor and director of the Ludwik Marek School of Music in Lemberg, then with Emil von Sauer, a pupil of Liszt, at the Vienna Academy of Music. …
In 1919 he made his debut in Vienna, and subsequently toured throughout the world. He lived in Cairo and then Rotterdam, where he taught at the Conservatory of Music from 1937 to 1940. During the Second World War he hid in France. Askenase's first concert in Poland after World War II took place on 17 May 1946. In 1950 he became a naturalized Belgian citizen and from 1954 to 1961 he taught at the Brussels Conservatory of Music. He recorded extensively the works of Chopin for the Deutsche Grammophon label in the 1950s and 1960s. Stefan Askenase was also noted for his master-classes in Hamburg, Cologne and Jerusalem. …
His pupils included Martha Argerich, László Gyimesi, John McKay, André Tchaikowsky and Mitsuko Uchida.
Stefan Askenase died in Bonn on 18 October 1985, shortly after giving a concert in Cologne."

I must have heard Askenase at least a dozen times in the 1950s. He never made a deep impression. Last week I decided to revisit one of his DGG recordings, on YT: the Chopin Preludes. It surprised me how a-typical - and polished - his interpretations are (compared with Rubinstein, Cortot, a.o.).

BTW, YT gives a reasonably truthful impression of how Askenase sounded in real life.


Henk

[Bozo]

Last week I decided to revisit one of his DGG recordings, on YT: the Chopin >Preludes. It surprised me how a-typical - and polished - his interpretations >are >(compared with Rubinstein, Cortot, a.o.).

Many thanks for this. Pity Presto Classical is asking US$20 for the set. As you say, atypical, but all refreshing, vital, eg. # 1, # 16 , # 22 to name but three. I have Rubinstein,Cortot,Fiorentino,Pogorelich,Tyson,perhaps another, but wish I had Askenase as well. Do also hear Andrew Tyson’s set on YT.

[Bozo]

Post by Bozo
. As you say, atypical, but all refreshing, vital, eg. # 1, # 16 , # 22 to name but three.

#24 in his hands sad,nostalgic, rather than another "Revolutionary " as often played by others.

[Steve Emerson]

Post by HT
"Askenase was born in Lemberg (1896) into a Jewish family. At the age of five he began playing the piano with his mother, a pianist and pupil of Karol Mikuli. He studied with Theodor Pollak, a professor and director of the Ludwik Marek School of Music in Lemberg, then with Emil von Sauer, a pupil of Liszt, at the Vienna Academy of Music. …
In 1919 he made his debut in Vienna, and subsequently toured throughout the world. He lived in Cairo and then Rotterdam, where he taught at the Conservatory of Music from 1937 to 1940. During the Second World War he hid in France. Askenase's first concert in Poland after World War II took place on 17 May 1946. In 1950 he became a naturalized Belgian citizen and from 1954 to 1961 he taught at the Brussels Conservatory of Music. He recorded extensively the works of Chopin for the Deutsche Grammophon label in the 1950s and 1960s. Stefan Askenase was also noted for his master-classes in Hamburg, Cologne and Jerusalem. …
His pupils included Martha Argerich, László Gyimesi, John McKay, André Tchaikowsky and Mitsuko Uchida.
Stefan Askenase died in Bonn on 18 October 1985, shortly after giving a concert in Cologne."
I must have heard Askenase at least a dozen times in the 1950s. He never made a deep impression. Last week I decided to revisit one of his DGG recordings, on YT: the Chopin Preludes. It surprised me how a-typical - and polished - his interpretations are (compared with Rubinstein, Cortot, a.o.).
http://youtu.be/YjiSgI66TO4
BTW, YT gives a reasonably truthful impression of how Askenase sounded in real life.

Hi Henk -- I think we talked about him once, some time ago. Nice to see you bringing him up afresh. Certainly agree that he is generally atypical, often winningly so. He isn't the most "pianistic" musician but then again he seldom if ever produces an ugly note.

A few favorite Chopin performances:

Barcarolle -- always compelling; a great contrast with the mere meandering lyricism so often heard in the piece.

Gorgeously articulated Scherzo #3 and strong Ballade #3.

Crisp and unusual Waltz #3 (i.e. Op 34/2).

Terrific Fantaisie-Impromptu, long on the Polonaise-like elements

I wasn't sold on his Sonata #3 despite numerous attractive passages. Not infrequently dull, lacking in momentum. Staccato-heavy finale not that effective.

Nocturnes -- I'd like to revisit. I found many of them novel and interestingly unsettling. Some were just dull.

When I'm ready to hear the Preludes (possibly not soon -- my problem, not theirs) I will hear his eagerly. I have no notes, which is strange.

Thanks again for the post.

SE.

[HT]

Post by Steve Emerson
Hi Henk -- I think we talked about him once, some time ago. Nice to see you bringing him up afresh. Certainly agree that he is generally atypical, often winningly so. He isn't the most "pianistic" musician but then again he seldom if ever produces an ugly note.

Yes, we did. Never in a positive sense, at least not by me. Somehow I recently felt the need to find out why. And decided to try my favorite Chopin: the preludes.

As you say, Askenase is not a pianistic musician. Hence my problems with him in the 1950s - and till a few days ago. <g>

Henk

[AB]

Post by HT

Post by Steve Emerson
Hi Henk -- I think we talked about him once, some time ago. Nice to see you bringing him up afresh. Certainly agree that he is generally atypical, often winningly so. He isn't the most "pianistic" musician but then again he seldom if ever produces an ugly note.

Yes, we did. Never in a positive sense, at least not by me. Somehow I recently felt the need to find out why. And decided to try my favorite Chopin: the preludes.
As you say, Askenase is not a pianistic musician. Hence my problems with him in the 1950s - and till a few days ago. <g>
Henk

I demand a clear explanation how one can recognize a 'pianistic musician'.

AB

[HT]

Post by AB
I demand a clear explanation how one can recognize a 'pianistic musician'.

IIRC Glenn Gould knew two kinds of pianists: 1. those who were first and foremost interested in the music they played, and 2. those who were first and foremost interested in the possibilities of their instrument. Richter was an example of the first category.

Henk

[AB]

Post by HT

Post by AB
I demand a clear explanation how one can recognize a 'pianistic musician'.

IIRC Glenn Gould knew two kinds of pianists: 1. those who were first and foremost interested in the music they played, and 2. those who were first and foremost interested in the possibilities of their instrument. Richter was an example of the first category.
Henk

OK- reasonable explanation, but you still did not explain how a 'pianistic pianist can be recognized by his PLAYING!
BTW- where does Gould fit in?

AB

[HT]

Post by AB
OK- reasonable explanation, but you still did not explain how a 'pianistic pianist can be recognized by his PLAYING!
BTW- where does Gould fit in?

I don't remember him mentioning it.

A pianistic pianist can be recognized by his extraversion. Horowitz is a clear example. So is Trifonov. As with all categories or typologies extremes are easiest to recognize. I wouldn't know for example how to categorize Michelangeli - or even Hamelin.

Henk

[AB]

Post by HT

Post by AB
OK- reasonable explanation, but you still did not explain how a 'pianistic pianist can be recognized by his PLAYING!
BTW- where does Gould fit in?

I don't remember him mentioning it.
A pianistic pianist can be recognized by his extraversion. Horowitz is a clear example. So is Trifonov. As with all categories or typologies extremes are easiest to recognize. I wouldn't know for example how to categorize Michelangeli - or even Hamelin.
Henk

not sure why you even mention Trifonov, IMO he is not a major pianist......

AB

[HT]

Post by AB
not sure why you even mention Trifonov, IMO he is not a major pianist......

In my opinion, he is a major pianist - although I decided not to listen to him anymore, for at least the next decade.

Henk

[AB]

Post by HT

Post by AB
not sure why you even mention Trifonov, IMO he is not a major pianist......

In my opinion, he is a major pianist - although I decided not to listen to him anymore, for at least the next decade.
Henk

next decade??? that is a very decadent remark :-)
right..he has a major REPUTATION, (why, I don't know) but he is not a world class pianist and at this stage of my life, that is all I want to listen to.

AB

[Bozo]

Post by AB
next decade??? that is a very decadent remark :-)
right..he has a major REPUTATION, (why, I don't know) but he is not a world class pianist and at this stage >of my life, that is all I want to listen to.

As I am 71, I admire Henk's optimism.
With all due respect to my elders, I believe Trifonov is a major pianist. I will continue to listen to him, to hear what he does, even though often ( not always) I do not care for his playing ,as he is interesting, and at this stage of my life who knows. Plus, ICE may find something amiss in his papers, and send him back.

[dk]

Post by HT

Post by AB
not sure why you even mention Trifonov, IMO he is not a major pianist......

In my opinion, he is a major pianist - although I
decided not to listen to him anymore, for at least
the next decade.

Let's hope he retires before
you get a chance to hear him
again. He has already made
waaay too much noise for a
mediocre provincial talent.

dk

[Steve Emerson]

Post by HT

Post by AB
OK- reasonable explanation, but you still did not explain how a 'pianistic pianist can be recognized by his PLAYING!
BTW- where does Gould fit in?

I don't remember him mentioning it.
A pianistic pianist can be recognized by his extraversion. Horowitz is a clear example. So is Trifonov. As with all categories or typologies extremes are easiest to recognize. I wouldn't know for example how to categorize Michelangeli - or even Hamelin.

Pianistic is hard to define and vague, and it took me a long time to warm to the term (which I introduced into this discussion). But my sense of the word is, in part, that anyone exceptionally concerned with tone production is pianistic. So Michelangeli is actually a prime example. Askenase isn't terribly pianistic; Serkin's an example of non-pianistic. Because Horowitz exploits a great range of tonal possibility and dynamics as well, he's a strong example of pianistic. For me extroversion doesn't figure in it one way or the other

SE.

[HT]

Post by Steve Emerson
Pianistic is hard to define and vague, and it took me a long time to warm to the term (which I introduced into this discussion). But my sense of the word is, in part, that anyone exceptionally concerned with tone production is pianistic. So Michelangeli is actually a prime example. Askenase isn't terribly pianistic; Serkin's an example of non-pianistic. Because Horowitz exploits a great range of tonal possibility and dynamics as well, he's a strong example of pianistic. For me extroversion doesn't figure in it one way or the other

Vague as it might have been, your 'pianistic' (as I understood it, with the help of Gould) was exactly what I needed to realize why it took me so long to at least appreciate what Askenase was trying to do.

Your definition of 'pianistic' (exceptionally concerned with tone production) is very welcome but somehow not as helpful as your indication 'pianistic'. Vagueness has its merits.
Rubinstein is not exceptionally concerned with tone production but his performances are pianistic. His main fear was being boring (My Young Years).

The fact that you see no relation between pianistic and extraversion makes me wonder why I do. Perhaps it's a video like this one (in the Gould video) that triggered the association:

It's not clear whether the music is 'outside' or 'inside' Richter, although he is playing from the score. He's certainly not interested in the piano or the audience. His energy doesn't expand in interaction with the instrument and/or his public (Wiki).

Horowitz is clearly in love with his Steinway:

Henk

[Steve Emerson]

Post by HT

Post by Steve Emerson
Pianistic is hard to define and vague, and it took me a long time to warm to the term (which I introduced into this discussion). But my sense of the word is, in part, that anyone exceptionally concerned with tone production is pianistic. So Michelangeli is actually a prime example. Askenase isn't terribly pianistic; Serkin's an example of non-pianistic. Because Horowitz exploits a great range of tonal possibility and dynamics as well, he's a strong example of pianistic. For me extroversion doesn't figure in it one way or the other

Vague as it might have been, your 'pianistic' (as I understood it, with the help of Gould) was exactly what I needed to realize why it took me so long to at least appreciate what Askenase was trying to do.
Your definition of 'pianistic' (exceptionally concerned with tone production) is very welcome but somehow not as helpful as your indication 'pianistic'. Vagueness has its merits.
Rubinstein is not exceptionally concerned with tone production but his performances are pianistic. His main fear was being boring (My Young Years).
http://youtu.be/lkZxAhhIEnU
It's not clear whether the music is 'outside' or 'inside' Richter, although he is playing from the score. He's certainly not interested in the piano or the audience. His energy doesn't expand in interaction with the instrument and/or his public (Wiki).
http://youtu.be/MtxynUhUqFs
Henk

Hi Henk -- Yes, vagueness can be useful. I didn't mean to confine "pianistic" to tone production; only to say that those preoccupied with it are one form of the "pianistic" musician. I think there are other varieties; harder to define.

In the Richter clip (a portion of D.894/i), he plays a lovely pianissimo, and he certainly knows how to make the piano produce it, regardless of his degree of infatuation with the instrument.

But I do follow what you say, and the Gould-noted dichotomy is a-propos. "The possibilities of their instrument."

Sorry to ramble. It's starting to look to me like "non-pianistic" may be a more useful term than "pianistic." (smiling)

Anyone else have ideas? I know DK has used the term at times, and Phil Caron did, and maybe John Gavin?

PS: do you really think that an extroverted banger would qualify as "pianistic"?

SE.

[Todd Michel McComb]

Post by Steve Emerson
Sorry to ramble. It's starting to look to me like "non-pianistic"
may be a more useful term than "pianistic." (smiling)
Anyone else have ideas?

Personally, in the broader context of contemporary music-making, I
use "pianistic" to suggest a traditional approach to playing the
piano -- such that anyone mentioned in this thread would surely
qualify -- and more broadly to indicate a conception of music, i.e.
music that could largely be developed while sitting at a piano (as
so much e.g. classical symphonic repertory has been). One sort of
obviously contrasting, non-pianistic music is then e.g. music without
distinct individual notes, i.e. tones blending into each other, or
rubbed strings, etc.

[Steve Emerson]

Post by Todd Michel McComb

Post by Steve Emerson
Sorry to ramble. It's starting to look to me like "non-pianistic"
may be a more useful term than "pianistic." (smiling)
Anyone else have ideas?

Personally, in the broader context of contemporary music-making, I
use "pianistic" to suggest a traditional approach to playing the
piano -- such that anyone mentioned in this thread would surely
qualify -- and more broadly to indicate a conception of music, i.e.
music that could largely be developed while sitting at a piano (as
so much e.g. classical symphonic repertory has been). One sort of
obviously contrasting, non-pianistic music is then e.g. music without
distinct individual notes, i.e. tones blending into each other, or
rubbed strings, etc.

Yes, that all makes sense. In a good dictionary, this would be broken out as a separate definition; it might be No. 2, and the one otherwise discussed here No. 3.

SE.

[JohnGavin]

Hi Henk -- Yes, vagueness can be useful. I didn't mean to confine "pianistic" to tone production; only to say that those preoccupied with it are one form of the "pianistic" musician. I think there are other varieties; harder to define.

In the Richter clip (a portion of D.894/i), he plays a lovely pianissimo, and he certainly knows how to make the piano produce it, regardless of his degree of infatuation with the instrument.

But I do follow what you say, and the Gould-noted dichotomy is a-propos. "The possibilities of their instrument."

Sorry to ramble. It's starting to look to me like "non-pianistic" may be a more useful term than "pianistic." (smiling)

Anyone else have ideas? I know DK has used the term at times, and Phil Caron did, and maybe John Gavin?

PS: do you really think that an extroverted banger would qualify as "pianistic"?

SE.

I agree that pianistic piano playing is a somewhat subjective perception. It might have to do with a deep emphasis on exploring instrumental possibilities as opposed to just seeing the piano as a medium of manifesting music.

One example that comes to mind are the Goldbergs played by Tureck versus Maria Tipo. The later being highly pianistic, the former rather unpianistic.

Agree that Michelangeli was one of the most pianistic players of all time, in that you are always aware of instrumental excellence. I’d put Rachmaninov, Benno M., Horowitz, Tipo, and Pollini in his prime and also Anthony Di Bonaventura in the pianistic category as well.

[Bozo]

Cziffra compared to Schnabel ?

[JohnGavin]

Cziffra compared to Schnabel?

_——————————————————
That brings up the question - does “pianistic” correspond to virtuosic.
I’d say not necessarily - but it’s too subjective to come to a definitive answer.

Cziffra could have definitely negotiated the op. 106 Fugue more impressively than Schnabel, but other than that, Schnabel would be the superior Beethoven pianist. Among Beethoven specialists, I’d say he produced the most beautiful sound, certainly a pianistic trait.

[Bozo]

There is a YT of Cziffra playing "Waldstein" live, date, venue not given, so one comparison with Schnabel can be made,Schnabel's " Waldstein" one of his better efforts if I recall. Prefer Schnabel's.

[dk]

Post by Bozo
There is a YT of Cziffra playing "Waldstein" live,
date, venue not given, so one comparison with Schnabel
can be made,Schnabel's " Waldstein" one of his better
efforts if I recall. Prefer Schnabel's.

The ultimate Waldstein is here:

Enjoy!

dk

[Bozo]

Here :

[Steve Emerson]

Post by Steve Emerson
Hi Henk -- Yes, vagueness can be useful. I didn't mean to confine "pianistic" to tone production; only to say that those preoccupied with it are one form of the "pianistic" musician. I think there are other varieties; harder to define.
In the Richter clip (a portion of D.894/i), he plays a lovely pianissimo, and he certainly knows how to make the piano produce it, regardless of his degree of infatuation with the instrument.
But I do follow what you say, and the Gould-noted dichotomy is a-propos. "The possibilities of their instrument."
Sorry to ramble. It's starting to look to me like "non-pianistic" may be a more useful term than "pianistic." (smiling)
Anyone else have ideas? I know DK has used the term at times, and Phil Caron did, and maybe John Gavin?
PS: do you really think that an extroverted banger would qualify as "pianistic"?
SE.
I agree that pianistic piano playing is a somewhat subjective perception. It might have to do with a deep emphasis on exploring instrumental possibilities as opposed to just seeing the piano as a medium of manifesting music.
One example that comes to mind are the Goldbergs played by Tureck versus Maria Tipo. The later being highly pianistic, the former rather unpianistic.
Agree that Michelangeli was one of the most pianistic players of all time, in that you are always aware of instrumental excellence. I’d put Rachmaninov, Benno M., Horowitz, Tipo, and Pollini in his prime and also Anthony Di Bonaventura in the pianistic category as well.

I think we're on the same pag, John. Tipo vs. Tureck is a great example. Moiseiwitsch is good to bring up. I might say Moravec rather than Pollini-in-his-prime; but then Moravec and tone production are more or less synonymous so it doesn't clarify much. Lupu; a lot of Fiorentino.

Your remark about virtuosity vs. pianistic is an important one, too.

SE.

[HT]

Post by Steve Emerson
Sorry to ramble. It's starting to look to me like "non-pianistic" may be a more useful term than "pianistic." (smiling)

<g> Rambling? Only for the uninitiated.

Post by Steve Emerson
PS: do you really think that an extroverted banger would qualify as "pianistic"?

Assuming that a performer believes that the audience demands above all a quantitative tone production (if we may believe Rubinstein's story about his early versions of Chopin 25/11, some audiences do), it would qualify. He (mostly he) does what is expected of him. However, it stops being pianistic and becomes clumsiness (as in young Rubinstein's case) as soon as quantity becomes a coverup for a lack of quality.

Look, who is rambling!

Henk

[Steve Emerson]

Post by HT

Post by Steve Emerson
Sorry to ramble. It's starting to look to me like "non-pianistic" may be a more useful term than "pianistic." (smiling)

<g> Rambling? Only for the uninitiated.

Post by Steve Emerson
PS: do you really think that an extroverted banger would qualify as "pianistic"?

Assuming that a performer believes that the audience demands above all a quantitative tone production (if we may believe Rubinstein's story about his early versions of Chopin 25/11, some audiences do), it would qualify. He (mostly he) does what is expected of him. However, it stops being pianistic and becomes clumsiness (as in young Rubinstein's case) as soon as quantity becomes a coverup for a lack of quality.
Look, who is rambling!

I think a pianist who "believes that the audience demands above all a quantitative tone production" is too smart to be called a banger; "banger" implies a certain degree of unconsciousness. Very ingenious reply, though!

SE.

[dk]

On Sunday, 25 August 2019 19:10:34 UTC+8, HT wrote:.

Post by HT
http://youtu.be/MtxynUhUqFs

As ever perverse! ;-)

dk

[Bozo]

Post by Steve Emerson
Terrific Fantaisie-Impromptu, long on the Polonaise-like elements

Agreed, thanks for the suggestion :

(Op.61)

I also enjoyed his Op.71 Polonaise.Hope to hear some of the Nocturnes and Barcarolle later.Was not so keen on the 3rd Scherzo,3rd Ballade.

[Bozo]

Post by Bozo
Hope to hear some of the Nocturnes and Barcarolle later.

Thanks again, Henk and Steve. These recordings were a pleasure to hear as Steve noted:

(Barcarolle)

( 8 Nocturnes )

[Steve Emerson]

Post by Bozo

Post by Bozo
Hope to hear some of the Nocturnes and Barcarolle later.

http://youtu.be/DMVv3-cjN00 (Barcarolle)
http://youtu.be/3nzPbKTWkhc ( 8 Nocturnes )

Please to hear you enjoyed!

SE.

[graham]

Post by Bozo

Post by Steve Emerson
Terrific Fantaisie-Impromptu, long on the Polonaise-like elements

Agreed, thanks for the suggestion : http://youtu.be/LYb_n1j7ZTo (Op.61)
I also enjoyed his Op.71 Polonaise.Hope to hear some of the Nocturnes and Barcarolle later.Was not so keen on the 3rd Scherzo,3rd Ballade.

This has prompted me to get out the 7 disc set that DG released in
~2007. I bought it out of nostalgia as some of my earliest LPs of
Chopin, bought in the 60s were by Askenase.

[Steve Emerson]

Post by Bozo

Post by Steve Emerson
Terrific Fantaisie-Impromptu, long on the Polonaise-like elements

Agreed, thanks for the suggestion : http://youtu.be/LYb_n1j7ZTo (Op.61)
I also enjoyed his Op.71 Polonaise.Hope to hear some of the Nocturnes and Barcarolle later.Was not so keen on the 3rd Scherzo,3rd Ballade.

Hi Steve -- I listened to the Scherzo 3 again and was very disappointed. Conceptually OK but often graceless. Certainly see why you weren't keen. Had to head for somebody else's just to rinse it out of my brain.

OTOH, his Berceuse sounded gorgeous to me. Perhaps in keeping with the merits of his Barcarolle. You can hear that here:

SE.

[AB]

Post by HT
"Askenase was born in Lemberg (1896) into a Jewish family. At the age of five he began playing the piano with his mother, a pianist and pupil of Karol Mikuli. He studied with Theodor Pollak, a professor and director of the Ludwik Marek School of Music in Lemberg, then with Emil von Sauer, a pupil of Liszt, at the Vienna Academy of Music. …
In 1919 he made his debut in Vienna, and subsequently toured throughout the world. He lived in Cairo and then Rotterdam, where he taught at the Conservatory of Music from 1937 to 1940. During the Second World War he hid in France. Askenase's first concert in Poland after World War II took place on 17 May 1946. In 1950 he became a naturalized Belgian citizen and from 1954 to 1961 he taught at the Brussels Conservatory of Music. He recorded extensively the works of Chopin for the Deutsche Grammophon label in the 1950s and 1960s. Stefan Askenase was also noted for his master-classes in Hamburg, Cologne and Jerusalem. …
His pupils included Martha Argerich, László Gyimesi, John McKay, André Tchaikowsky and Mitsuko Uchida.
Stefan Askenase died in Bonn on 18 October 1985, shortly after giving a concert in Cologne."
I must have heard Askenase at least a dozen times in the 1950s. He never made a deep impression. Last week I decided to revisit one of his DGG recordings, on YT: the Chopin Preludes. It surprised me how a-typical - and polished - his interpretations are (compared with Rubinstein, Cortot, a.o.).
http://youtu.be/YjiSgI66TO4
BTW, YT gives a reasonably truthful impression of how Askenase sounded in real life.
Henk

just heard some of he preludes... lousy piano, playing at times a bit mannered. Much prefer Cherkassky

AB

[Andy Evans]

Post by AB
just heard some of he preludes... lousy piano, playing at times a bit mannered. Much prefer Cherkassky

AB

Not a fan of Askenazy, and not a fan of Chopin's Preludes either. As a whole collection they'd come a long way down my list of favourites - too many dull ones. Richter played only a selection in concert and I agree with him there.

[dk]

Post by Andy Evans
Not a fan of Askenazy, and not a fan of Chopin's
Preludes either. As a whole collection they'd come
a long way down my list of favourites - too many dull
ones. Richter played only a selection in concert and I
agree with him there.

None of them are dull! The pianists
who play them are often dull. In
this case including Richter.

dk

[Andy Evans]

Post by dk
None of them are dull! The pianists
who play them are often dull. In
this case including Richter.
dk

Dull ones for me: 2,4,9,13,20 .... very hard having to slog through them

[Tatonik]

Post by Andy Evans
Dull ones for me: 2,4,9,13,20 .... very hard having to slog through them

A friend told me that the only piece of classical music he ever liked
was the Chopin No. 20 Prelude.

[Bozo]

Post by Tatonik
A friend told me that the only piece of classical music he ever liked
was the Chopin No. 20 Prelude.

Busoni's Variations and Fugue on that Prelude played by John Ogdon on his debut lp :

[weary flake]

Post by Tatonik

Post by Andy Evans
Dull ones for me: 2,4,9,13,20 .... very hard having to slog through them

A friend told me that the only piece of classical music he ever liked
was the Chopin No. 20 Prelude.

A Bugs Bunny cartoon was my introduction to that prelude.

[Bozo]

Post by weary flake
A Bugs Bunny cartoon was my introduction to that prelude.

A Bugs Bunny cartoon I believe my first hearing of the Liszt Rhapsody # 2 with Jose Iturbi, possibly the first CM I heard.

[AB]

Post by dk

Post by Andy Evans
Not a fan of Askenazy, and not a fan of Chopin's
Preludes either. As a whole collection they'd come
a long way down my list of favourites - too many dull
ones. Richter played only a selection in concert and I
agree with him there.

None of them are dull! The pianists
who play them are often dull. In
this case including Richter.
dk

good comment dk

AB

[HT]

Post by AB
just heard some of he preludes... lousy piano, playing at times a bit mannered. Much prefer Cherkassky

I'd say polished and controlled, as was rather bon ton in those days - among certain music lovers. According to them, Cherkassky was the epitome of bad taste - as he was, on a bad day.

Henk

[AB]

Post by HT

Post by AB
just heard some of he preludes... lousy piano, playing at times a bit mannered. Much prefer Cherkassky

I'd say polished and controlled, as was rather bon ton in those days - among certain music lovers. According to them, Cherkassky was the epitome of bad taste - as he was, on a bad day.
Henk

upset about your above comment regarding Cherkassky....please apologize at your earliest convienence :-)

AB

[HT]

Post by AB
upset about your above comment regarding Cherkassky....please apologize at your earliest convienence :-)

I'm sorry to hear that I've upset you. At our age, we should avoid all emotions, in particular negative ones. So I won't refer to that great pianist and friend of Cherkassky who complained that the latter sometimes played like a pig. Nor will I illustrate that opinion with links to YT. <g>

Henk

[AB]

Post by HT

Post by AB
upset about your above comment regarding Cherkassky....please apologize at your earliest convienence :-)

I'm sorry to hear that I've upset you. At our age, we should avoid all emotions, in particular negative ones. So I won't refer to that great pianist and friend of Cherkassky who complained that the latter sometimes played like a pig. Nor will I illustrate that opinion with links to YT. <g>
Henk

deeply appreciate your concern for my emotional well being, but please don't refer to my (our) age.:-))

AB