|
|
Goldberg Variations BWV 988
General Discussions - Part 3 (2003) |
|
Continue from Part 2 |
|
Goldberg Variations |
|
Peter Bright wrote (February 26, 2003):
I have been discussing with Piotr a programme that went out on Saturday morning (BBC Radio 3 CD review) on the finest versions of the Goldbergs (both harpsichord and piano). The 'building a library' section is particularly informative (and often surprising), with the 1995-2002 archives available via http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/classical/cdreview.shtml. (I'm sure Tom will be overjoyed to see that Harnoncourt wins for his most recent Saint Matthe Passion on Teldec).
The harpsichord Goldbergs chosen above all others was Leonhardt's on Teldec (recorded in 1962), with Hantai, Maggie Cole and one or two others also rated highly. I have never really cared for the Cole recording (although admit to not really giving it much time to rate one way or the other) but thoroughly agree with the Hantai nomination. But what about Leonhardt's? A great teacher and master of the instrument, but would others class this as the finest currently available? (I haven't heard it...).
If you want to hear the programme, you can listen online via the link given above.
Bach harpsichord concert
Jim Morrison wrote:
<< Ah, jezz, Piotr, I didn't mean to step on one of you favorite recordings of these works, but there's something about them that doesn't work for me, and that something is named Egarr (and that harpsichord! what the heck is he driving?) I really don't know why Manze sticks with him. Are they a couple or something like that? Best friends since they were wee lads? Partners in crime? >>
Piotr Jaworski wrote (February 25, 2003)
< I don't mind at all - no offence reported. Notonly that this is NOT one of my favourite recordings - certainly could be better, I also agree that the "Egarr thing" is the biggest trouble maker here ... The only thing I'd oppose strongly is thrashing this recording on account of less than 50% of it's contents. On the other hand - Egarr - Manze collaboration brings also terrific fruits like Handel 'Violin Sonatas' - just to mention one of the recent releases .... and Corelli Op. 5 'Sonatas' as already released and I'm sure that you had no occasion to become familiar with. Believe me - gorgeous recording and performance! To sum up - you're wrong here - IMO. This 'couple' is one of the best "violinist/harpsichordist couple" I had a pleasure to encounter. >
<< I feel like the Seattle Baroque recording has much more of the 'moment to moment' interest quality than the Manze one. The strings players are much more doing their own thing than with the Manze, who seems to me has them relatively in line. Also, there seems to me more flexibility in the Seattle Baroque recording. >>
< I wouldn't be surprised if the above comments prove to be true. I have a couple of Wildboar recordings made by (another couple!) - Schenkmann and Matthews. I really treasure all of them a lot. Unfortunately I still miss their Centaur recordings. >
<< (...) Once again, though, I think the strings are fine in this recording, but the disc is too expensive (about 40 dollars in the USA) and that Egarr does almost nothing for me as a harpsichordist, and that finally critique is deadly (for me at least) when he supposed star of the show. If I ever see the set on sale for half-price, I'll buy, but until then I'll pass. >>
< No comments on that .... But one things I must admitt - this one is really terribly expensive in the US! >
<< Tell me Piotr who else do you like in 1052? I'm curious where you'd rank Manze with the other harpsichord versions that you have. Just trying to get a better feel for where you're coming from. Anybody heard Levin on Hänssler? How do Manze/Egarr rank any of the following, some of which I don't have? Leonhardt, Musica Alta Ripa, Jaccottet, Kipnis, Naxos (well worth having) Hantai, Pinnock, Richter, Gilbert, Bob van Asperen, Landowska, Alpermann, Frisch. >>
< You want me to tell you the truth? In this very moment? Frankly I like the most two PIANO versions of 1052 now - the one by Perahia (from CD) and other by Hewitt (from radio broadcast) I'm very, very much in the Perahia mood actually ... :-) Perahia will perform with AMF tomorrow in Warsaw - Bach's 5th Brandenburg Concerto, Mozart and Beethoven! Today I'll disapear from work for two hours and attend his press conference - maybe I should ask him a question on your behalf??? But which harpsichod ones...? Hantai with Le Concert Francaise, Alessandrini with Concerto Italiano, Frisch with La Cafe Zimmermann and Pinnock with the English Concert - and the one I anticipate and look forward very much - Suzuki with BCJ! ;-) Let's hope that another 'complete' .... Where do I place Egarr in that 1052 competition? Somewhere between Hantai and Frisch from the one side, and Alessandrini and Pinnock from the other. In the middle. This is where I'm coming from, Jim... do recognize the place of origin now??? ;-) > |
|
Floyd Slotterback wrote (February 26, 2003):
[To Peter Bright] The weblink in this message brings up a "no such address available"--is there any other way to access it? |
|
Peter Bright wrote (February 26, 2003):
[To Floyd Slotterback] Try this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/classical - then choose "Programmes" from the right hand menu, then select "CD Review" and "listen to the latest programme". To give you an idea of what you will hear, you can select "latest playlist" from the bottom of the "CD Review" page. |
| |
|
Goldberg |
|
Paul Johnr wrote (April 27, 2003):
I am curious if anyone has played or attempted to play from the Goldberg Variations and if anyone is willing to tell about his or her experiences with them.
I've heard them described as "monumental." Difficut or impossible for the average pianist, perhaps? |
|
Peter Bright wrote (April 28, 2003):
[To Paul Johnr] Well, I think Wanda Landowski referred to it as the most difficult keyboard work ever composed... In fact, she became frustrated with the notion that people only wanted to hear it because of the technical demands it placed on the performer, rather than because it is such a sublime composition. Obviously, some variations (and the aria) are relatively simple, but others are fiendishly difficult... |
|
Paul Johnr wrote (April 28, 2003):
[To Peter Bright] I've looked through the printed score, and it doesn't "appear" much different from other Bach compositions. But, then again, I thought the Shostakovich First Fugue (C Major) would be fairly easy. Needless to say, it is not. |
|
Michael Stitt wrote (April 29, 2003):
[To Peter Bright] Bach has often been referred to as the pure musician - a composer who thought conceptually before putting his thoughts on to the instrument itself. This analogy is consistent with many compositions including the Art of Fugue where no single instrument was ever made clear as to the medium to play this great work. Similarly the so called lute works seem to have been conceptalised on a lauten werck - lute harpsichord. The brilliance of Bach's compositions is, IMHO, his freedom to make such variety and richness of composition, despite the potential limitation of the instrument.
I play the Goldbergs on my Baroque lute and haven't quite got the courage to play in a recital because of a sense that the tempi of my playing woud not suit an audience.
Having this in mind, it would surprise me if this music is considered difficult to play on the keyboard too. |
|
Paul Johnr wrote (April 29, 2003):
[To Michael Stitt] But shouldn't a performer be free to interpret tempo, Michael? That is one feature of music where there should be considerable liberty.
Have you played the variations for anyone to critique the tempo chosen? |
|
Sam Hutchings wrote (August 28, 2003):
[To Paul Johnr] The fundamental problem with playing the Goldberg Variations on the piano is that they were written for a double mainstrument. In some of the variations, therefore, the hands are forced into uncomfortably close proximity or have to cross awkwardly when played on a single manual instrument (notably in variations 5, 8, 11 and 20 and, to a lesser degree, in some others).
Even taken on its own terms, however, as a piece for two manuals, the Goldberg Variations do contain much writing that is exceedingly difficult and it has always seemed highly improbable that the eponymous Goldberg (only 14 years old at the time of the completion of the work) would have been capable of performing it. As you say, many more recent figures have also found great technical difficulties in the work and although early
recordings were made by Landowska and Serkin, it was largely the 1955 recording by Gould which finally got it recognised as a performable and technically viable piece for the concert repertoire, allbeit one to be approached with caution (its great length alone means that issues such as stamina and sustained concentration have to be considered beyond the technical difficulty of individual movements). |
| |
|
Goldbergs |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (October 18, 2003):
Bob Henderson wrote:
< My first loves were the Richter BMM and the first Gould Goldbergs. >
That 1955 Gould record is special, isn't it? Same here, that was one of the first Bach recordings that really touched me, and drew me in. That and his set of the partitas.
I've been working on a short set of reviews, a "Christmas Wish List" of classical recordings, for a non-music magazine. It's a list of recommendations for people who might buy a dozen or fewer discs in a whole year, and focused on new-ish releases. And I had the Gould reissue "A State of Wonder" (1955 and 1981 recordings plus some bonus stuff) in a prominent slot for most of the writing process, but it just got bumped out last week! What bumped it out, in my opinion, as even more essential? The new Schiff.
That Gould reissue last year is so great because they've finally fixed the harsh early-digital sound of the 1981 recording, and gone back to the simultaneously-recorded analog tapes. The tone is warm and it sounds like a real piano. It sounds so much better than ever before, it's a must-buy even if (maybe "especially if") one didn't like that performance before, as I haven't. I still like his live 1959 performance in Salzburg better, and then the 1955, and then the 1981, and then the 1954 from CBC. But the 1981 recording redeems itself here. For 20 years my impression had been that Gould near the end of his life didn't care about beautiful tone anymore; but I was wrong. He was just a victim of poor engineering there! [I still consider the 1981 recording, excellent as it is, more a piece by Glenn Gould about Glenn Gould performed by Glenn Gould, than a performance of the Goldberg Variations....]
Anyway, the new Schiff recording on ECM is good enough to bump off that Gould reissue as essential listening for this year, and that's saying a lot. It joins my rarefied top three on piano: the live 1959 Gould, Zhu Xiao-Mei, and now the new Schiff. There are some other very good piano recordings out there, too, but I feel these are the three I couldn't do without. Do I like it better than Zhu and Gould? I don't know yet. At this level, why should there be only one "best" recording? The music can stand different and equally convincing approaches.
Some earlier thoughts about Zhu's recording, et al: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/zhu-goldbergs.htm
Incidentally, the other Bach recordings on my list for this year are Ingrid Matthews' set of the violin sonatas and partitas; and the Karl-Friedrich Beringer recording of cantatas 34/93/100.
I've had the Matthews set for more than a year, and have found it so satisfying that I have to say something about it in print. And the Beringer disc is a wonderful model of intelligent Bach performance with an orchestra of modern instruments, plus some terrific singing. (Yes, I usually prefer period instruments, and players and singers who specialize in Baroque performance practices, but this performance is strong enough and beautiful enough to make a case for the former "mainstream" musicianship. And they have brought in the most essential historically-informed practices, for a terrific blend of style.)
There are still a few more weeks of sifting and thinking to do before press deadline, but I'm pretty sure Matthews, Beringer, and Schiff will stay on the list. |
| |
|
Older Goldbergs |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (November 19, 2003):
Roy Johansen wrote:
< then there's a really marvellous Claudio Arrau recording from 1942. To me, this is the "forgotten Goldberg". People seem to think that before Gould's '55, there were only Landowska and Tureck. >
And Ralph Kirkpatrick in 1952, on Haydn Society: one I like better than his remake.
Has Sylvia Marlowe's (late 1950s, on Decca) ever made it to CD? Or Peter Serkin's solo debut recording, on RCA?
I'll also second your praise for the underrated Christiane Jaccottet.
Her playing was just so lovely and forthright, with an admirable plasticity: no dull mechanical regularity there, but rather phrasing that sounds like good singing. All-around moderation, in a good way.
(And at least some of her Bach recordings were on the full-priced Intercord label; not only the budget bin.)
Evidently I like the Landowska renditions better than you do. Yes, the instrument sounds awful and Landowska made some other choices (in registration and touch) that are now pretty much frowned upon; but her commitment to the music, and her intensity with it, was really something special. "Volcanic" would be a good word here. And her petites reprises always catch me off guard and make me smile. |
|
Roy Johansen wrote (November 20, 2003):
[To Bradley Lehman] Weeeell, Landowska remains a stumbling block for me; perhaps I'll give her another whirl one of these days. --But don't her petits reprises kind of give off a faint odor of camphor candy and 4711 Eau-de-Cologne? Aren't they just a little too quaint? That, coupled with her "You play Bach your way, I'll play him his" quip, just conjure up "dear-old-lady" images for me, and I find it hard to listen to her without those prejudices. But since I respect your opinions (doesn't mean I necessarily always agree :) ), I'll give her recordings another listen, and try to get beyond the Miss-Marple veil that may be clouding my judgment.
The Kirkpatrick you mention is great, and you get a lot of music bundled with it; all of the Clavierübungen not specifically written for the organ. Go "Music & Arts"! |
|
Andrzej Kozlowski wrote (November 20, 2003):
[To Bradley Lehman] I wonder why nobody on this list ever seems to mention Maria Yudina's Goldbergs:
for me a top candidate for the "greatest ever". |
|
Stephen Benson wrote (November 20, 2003):
[To Andrzej Kozlowski] For what it's worth, I find her harsh and aggressive playing sets my teeth on edge. There are moments of relative relaxation, but, for the most part, her style has an element of the borderline frenetic. |
|
Andrzej Kozlowski wrote (November 21, 2003):
[To Stephen Benson] Naturally my feelings as diametrically opposite. For me it is the most moving performance I have heard, in fact one of the very few about which I have felt like that. However, arguing about such matters is not a good idea. |
|
Stephen Benson wrote (November 21, 2003):
[To Andrzej Kozlowski] You'll have to forgive me if I don't quite understand the last sentence of your response. It IS my understanding, however, that this is a discussion list one of whose aims is the discussion of the relative merits of different Bach recordings. You praised a recording. I disagreed. I gave my reasons. I said exactly what I thought about it.Isn't that what this list is for? How is "arguing about such matters . . .not a good idea"? And if "arguing" is not such a good idea, how about "discussing"? I, for one, would be curious to know what there is about the Yudina performance that so strikes a chord with you. Obviously, you have very strong feelings about it. Maybe I'm missing something. Not being anywhere near perfect, but being capable, like everybody else, of serious misjudgments, artistically and otherwise, I'm ready to have my ears opened. I'll take it one step further. I'd LIKE to be proved wrong. I'd LIKE to find more music -- both compositions and performances -- to love. I would guess that he who loves the most music is a candidate for "happiest man in the world".
(If the tone of my criticism seemed unnecessarily harsh and "in your face", I apologize. I could have been more diplomatic.) |
|
Dave Harman wrote (November 21, 2003):
Stephen Benson wrote:
< How is "arguing about such matters . . .not a good idea"? And if "arguing" is not such a good idea, how about "discussing"? >
I too am puzzled by his response. However, I think it's probably because his english is so bad that he probably didn't use the right words. |
|
Andrzej Kozlowski wrote (November 21, 2003):
[To Dave Harman] I am curious whether the idea that my "English is so bad" comes form reading my other posting or just your failure to understand this particular one. I am concerned because I am a British educated academic (I emigrated there from Poland aged 15) with a long teaching experience in both the US and Britain and the author of books and papers that have not required any special editing. Admittedly I do not have much time to spend on these messages and usually fail to spell-check them properly, but I have never heard anyone make this sort of claim before. Or is it perhaps that you always blame your own failure to understand another person's view point on that person's poor linguistic skills? A most convenient apporach! |
|
Andrzej Kozlowski wrote (November 21, 2003):
[To Stephen Benson] Experience has taught me that arguing about people or ideas which you love (or have other strong feelings about) with people who have strongly opposed feelings or opinions about them not only never leads to any conclusion but actually gives rise to a dislike of the person who disagrees with you. This applies equally well to art, ethics or politics. Perhaps you do not feel that way and in that case I admit that you are a better person than myself but I do and it is not something I can change. That I am not alone in that is clear just by reading a few postings on this mailing list and I can't imagine you have not noticed this. Not being perfect I must confess to a certain degree of mischievous enjoyment I find in reading other people's acrimonious disputes but I do not intend to enter any myself. It is quite different when another person broadly loves the same things as you but just disagrees about some particular aspects of them. As this is clearly not the case here I do not wish to cause any irritation to you or myself over this matter. This does not mean that I in any way disparage your musical judgment. Let me give you an example. As I am sure you know the Russian composer Chaikovsky described Bach as "a mediocre composer, no genius at all" and Handel as a "fourth rate composer". These are interesting statements and tell us a lot about Chaikovski. But if posted to this list I am sure they would meet with, let's say, a "cool reception". I don't think a debate of this point would do any good to anyone. As for Yudina, I consider her one of the greatest musicians of all time (and this is how she is generally viewed in Russia) and as a human being quite without a peer in the history of music. All of this I find in her performance Goldberg variations. What else can I say? I could quote some authorities but what's the value of that? I don't see even a starting point here for a discussion so i hope you will not be offended if I end it here. |
|
Stephen Benson wrote (November 21, 2003):
Andrzej Kozlowski wrote:
< Experience has taught me that arguing about people or ideas which you love (or have other strong feelings about) with people who have strongly opposed feelings or opinions about them . . . never leads to any conclusion >
You, Andrzej, asked a question ("I wonder why nobody on this list ever seems to mention Maria Yudina's Goldbergs: for me a top candidate for the "greatest ever".") I answered. Because you didn't like my answer, you refused to engage. If you didn't want to hear a dissenting viewpoint, no matter how strong, you shouldn't have asked the question.
Now, however, you have raised the ante. You are suggesting that you are right because you say so -- the ultimate "ad hominem", perhaps -- thereby implying, despite your disclaimer, that I am a musical cretin unable to appreciate the finer things. (I know I am guilty of putting words in your mouth here, but I wanted to choose words that conveyed the sense of your argument.)
You have made some extravagant statements about Maria Yudina. Not only do you feel her Goldbergs to be above reproach, but you also claim, " As for Yudina, I consider her one of the greatest musicians of all time (and this is how she is generally viewed in Russia) and as a human being quite without a peer in the history of music." That's pretty heady stuff!
The heroic integrity of her dissidence under the communist regime is well documented, and any argument about her relative worth as a human being seems pointless. Hagiographic hyperbole which claims for her such exalted status as a musician, however, merits closer attention.
As wonderful as "love" is, it is a poor foundation -- maybe THIS is the ultimate "ad hominem" -- on which to build objective criticism. The worshipful tone of your praise would suggest that perhaps your assessment of her musicianship has been colored by your admiration for her as a human being. There is nothing wrong with that with respect to your own appreciation of her performances. There are no rules governing the elements which provide musical pleasure and enjoyment. You are entitled to your own gratifications. Sweeping generalities of her comparative superiority, however, have to be based on more than love.
I would really like to know if it is my own inability to hear the positive attributes of Yudina's playing. Is it something in me? What exactly is it that I am missing? If you, Andrzej, won't address the issue of her recording of the Goldbergs, is there someone who will? Have I gone over the top in choosing the adjectives "harsh" and
"aggressive"? Am I being totally unreasonable here? |
|
Andrzej Kozlowski wrote (November 21, 2003):
Stephen Benson wrote:
< You, Andrzej, asked a question ("I wonder why nobody on this list ever seems to mention Maria Yudina's Goldbergs: for me a top candidate for the "greatest ever".") I answered. Because you didn't like my answer, you refused to engage. If you didn't want to hear a dissenting viewpoint, no matter how strong, you shouldn't have asked the question. >
Really, is that a rule of this mailing list? Is one obliged to engage in a discussion with anyone who chooses to reply to one's posting? As a matter of fact when I asked my question I was curious to find out how many people have heard Yudina's recording. I read your opinion and that was enough for me. I did not show any disrespect, I only indicated that I did not think a discussion would be productive.
< Now, however, you have raised the ante. You are suggesting that you are right because you say so -- the ultimate "ad hominem", perhaps -- thereby implying, despite your disclaimer, that I am a musical cretin unable to appreciate the finer things. (I know I am guilty of putting words in your mouth here, but I wanted to choose words that conveyed the sense of your argument.) >
Well, this sounds to me exactly as what i was afraid of. You are indeed putting words in my mouth and in a way that make me not wish to hold any discussions with you, not just aboutmusic. Let me again remained you that most people, including myself, participate in this list not because they are obliged to but for enjoyment. There is not rule that says we have to engage in discussion we do not enjoy or with person's home we do not enjoy holding discussions. I am only continuing out of politeness, but the supply is running short.
< The heroic integrity of her dissidence under the communist regime is well documented, and any argument about her relative worth as a human being seems pointless. Hagiographic hyperbole which claims for her such exalted status as a musician, however, merits closer attention. >
Sound to me like you hardly know anything about her.
< I would really like to know if it is my own inability to hear the positive attributes of Yudina's playing. Is it something in me? What exactly is it that I am missing? If you, Andrzej, won't address the issue of her recording of the Goldbergs, is there someone who will? >
There is at least one other person who feels in a similar way to me and with whom I have discussed these matters elsewhere. However he has told me that he has chosen not to participate in these discussions because the tone that now rules here.
< Have I gone over the top in choosing the adjectives "harsh" and "aggressive"? Am I being totally unreasonable here? >
You are entitled to them. To me they are as far as possible form my experience. "Austere" I would agree with and I would add "intensely spiritual". The person i mentioned above called it 'religious'. |
|
Stephen Benson wrote (November 22, 2003):
Andrzej Kozlowski wrote:
< There is not rule that says we have to engage in discussion we do not enjoy or with person's home we do not enjoy holding discussions. >
You're absolutely right. I apologize. |
|
Andrzej Kozlowski wrote (November 22, 2003):
Yudina's Goldberg Variations
While I declined to discuss further Yudina's Goldberg Variations with Mr. Benson (in the "Older Goldbergs" thread) due to the obvious incompatibility of our musical tastes, I have found a review on Amazon by Richard Townsend which exactly matches my own feelings and which I think may be of interest to those who are not familiar with this recording.
Maria Yudina (1899-1970, one of the greatest pianists of her generation, dared to become a "legend in her own lifetime". She was born in Nevel, Russia and died in Moscow. She began her formal studies at age 7 and went on to become a star pupil at the St. Petersburg Conservatory (studying with the great Anna Essipova). Possessing "fingers of steel", a poetic temperament, and a masculine creative intellect, Yudina made music like no other of her generation. She was truly a profound humanist: an interpreter of genius. She dared to be true to her own beliefs at a time of repressing conformity. She was labeled as Stalin's favorite pianist, and because of this fact, she got away with sending him nasty notes about his policies without being sent to the Gulag like so many great intellectuals. An interesting story has it that she once played a Mozart concerto for Soviet radio and on hearing this, Stalin ordered a copy of the performance to be sent to him immediately. Since no one dared to tell Stalin that it was a live broadcast, the pianist and the entire orchestra found themselves brought back to the recording studio at four in the morning. She was a great eccentric as well, often reading banned literature at her concerts. Her repetoire was staggering, including everything from Rameau to Boulez and STockhausen. However, on this cd is in my opinion, one of hers and history's greatest recordings: that of BAch's Goldberg Variations. It's without doubt the most fascinating and colorful Goldberg I've ever heard, and it was recorded just two years before her death at age 71. She did not get round to playing the Goldberg in public until such a late age because of the maturity and intellectual strength needed to really "interpret" such a monument of music.Her embellishments are torrential. The sound is like a full orchestra. But as the booklet says, this is a Bach very much in keeping with our time, showing that humanism and the creative ethic can still shine in the modern mess of the Twentieth Century. The way in which she brings out the subtleties of the piece is in fact quite amazing. She accentuates the polyphonic richness of the work with a majesty I've rarely heard. Full of fantasy and an amazing drive (even surpassing Gould, Jambor, and other great Bach keyboard artists). Intense, intellectual, and most of all spiritual playing. One of the great talents of the past century. I recommend this recently released recording for any music connoisseur. |
|
Dave Harman wrote (November 22, 2003):
[To Stephen Benson] Don't worry about this guy. He's not intellectually flexible enough to communicate with someone who holds different ideas. This person doesn't 'discuss'. He issues terse statements affirming what he believes with no desire to hear any other view. After all, he has his opinions - why should he discuss - or argue ? This way he doesn't have to communicate - or risk being upset |
| |
|
UNfavorite Goldberg Variations? |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (November 20, 2003):
Roy Johansen wrote:
< Which one was my favorite before the new Schiff? Oh man, that's a hard one. >
Perhaps an easier question: which recording has been your UNfavorite, one that has made you shriek, "Make it stop, MAKE IT STOP!!!" whenever it's on?
For me, from a choice of about 50, it's hands-down the 1970 Urtext bash-through by Karl Richter, on a Neupert. Richter was more skilled and insightful at other things than the Goldberg Variations. |
|
Roy Johansen wrote (November 20, 2003):
[To Bradley Lehman] How about Wilhelm Kempff's un-embellished, over-pedalled 1970 piano recording? It kind of evokes the same feeling as when you look at a Salvador Dalí painting for the first time and think "What's up with those elephants' legs?". It's just so hard to even get past the aria... |
|
David Glenn Lebut Jr. wrote (November 20, 2003):
[To Bradley Lehman] As much as I like Pianos, I have to say any performance of the Arie mit dreissig Veraenderungen performed on a Piano makes me grit my teeth. The following are my reasons:
1.) The work was intended for a two manual instrument (as were most works of the Klavieruebung series with the exception of Erster Theil der Klavieruebung).
2.) The work (as with all the works in the whole Klavieruebung series) was intended for pre-modern Piano instruments (usually Harpsichord with the exception of Dritter Theil der Klavieruebung, although I have heard some good cases made for Clavichord). |
| |
|
Continue on Part 4 |
|
|
