|
Goldberg Variations BWV 988
Played by Gustav Leonhardt
|
Goldbergs - Leonhardt |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (May 30, 2001):
Donald Satz wrote:
< There's nothing like a good list of GV recordings. Essential Harpsichord : Leonhardt,(...) >
Which Leonhardt recording? Teldec/Telefunken, Seon/dhm/ProArte/Quintessence 1976, or Vanguard 1953? (Or have there been more than three?) |
|
Donald Satz wrote (May 30, 2001):
[To Bradley Lehman] I'm referring to the Vanguard release which was recorded in '53'. Are any of the others still in print? |
|
Donald Satz wrote (May 30, 2001):
[To Bradley Lehman] After doing a little research, it does appear that the Leonhardt Goldbergs on Teldec is still available. There's one more to acquire. I thank Brad for the info. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (May 31, 2001):
[To Donald Satz] Do try to get the Pro Arte/dhm/Seon/Quintessence, though, if you ever see it anywhere. It will probably surface again, perhaps on Sony or dhm? It's the best of the three.
It and the 1965 Telefunken (I still can't say Teldec, because I've always heard it on a Telefunken LP, and Teldec didn't exist) are rather similar to one another overall, but the Pro Arte performance has better detailing...especially in the left hand. Clearer sound, too.
Both of these are on harpsichords far, far, FAR, FAR!!!! superior to the Ammer he played on Vanguard. It's a wonder he got as much out of that instrument as he did in 1953. And Leonhardt's interpretation picked up quite a bit of depth in his two later recordings. (This first recording is a coup for its time, but he got better, and then better again.) Don, if you know only this Vanguard one so far, you're in for a real treat!
My other favorite from the early 1950's is Kirkpatrick on Haydn Society. I've enjoyed that more than any of Kirkpatrick's remakes. |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (May 31, 2001):
'Twas dhm, not Seon. So, it won't be on Sony. But it's here on dhm at German Amazon: Amazon.de
(I have it on Pickwick/Quintessence LP's and then again on Pro Arte/Intersound CD 010 from 1985.) |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (June 12, 2001):
I see that somebody has a copy of this same dhm Leonhardt Goldbergs disc on eBay this week: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1437453387 |
| |
|
Leonhardt's 1953 Goldbergs |
|
Kirk McElhearn wrote (October 8, 2001):
Just listening to this recording for the first time. Is this the first "modern" recording of the Goldbergs, that is, the first one to consider authentic performance practice? Brad, I'm sure you can answer that... |
| |
|
Leonhardt's harpsichord |
|
Kirk McElhearn wrote (October 8, 2001):
Another question that Brad can probably answer... What instrument did Leonhardt use on the 53 Goldbergs and AoF? It sounds very tinny, with little bass resonance. Is this due to the instrument or the recording. It also sounds like it was miked very closely, especially the AoF.
Thanks, |
|
Donald Satz wrote (October 8, 2001):
[To Kirk McElhearn] The liner notes for Leonhardt's first recording of the Goldbergs indicates an Ammer harpsichord made in Eisenberg - that's all. |
| |
|
Goldberg Variations - Leonhardt |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (February 26, 2003):
Peter Bright wrote:
< (...) 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...). >
No. Leonhardt's own later recording on DHM is a better performance than on his Telefunken/Teldec...and both of those are much better than his old Vanguard. The last time we talked about this DHM recording, about a year ago, it was available (with samples) on Amazon.de. I haven't checked recently.
I like Hantai's, and haven't heard Cole's.
There was also a Gramophone survey of recordings (Nicholas Anderson, October 1996 issue) that put Cole's as a top recommendation. That suggests to me (while I haven't heard it) that it's probably a safe and boring rendition, inoffensive, lacking character.... :)
[I'm generally not so fond of Gramophone and Penguin Guide recommendations...those writers seem to hear things in, shall we say, a teddibly English "proper" manner that doesn't move me.] |
|
Peter Bright wrote (February 26, 2003):
Bradley Lehman wrote:
< There was also a Gramophone survey of recordings (Nicholas Anderson, October 1996 issue) that put Cole's as a top recommendation. That suggests to me (while I haven't heard it) that it's probably a safe and boring rendition, inoffensive, lacking character.... :) [I'm generally not so fond of Gramophone and Penguin Guide recommendations...those writers seem to hear things in, shall we say, a teddibly English "proper" manner that doesn't move me.] >
I say, old boy, steady on! Your views are frightfully assuming about us Brits. Nice cup of tea anybody? |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (February 26, 2003):
[To Peter Bright] Just reporting here what I've read in those two particular publications, and my cdisappointment when I buy something they recommend and then listen to it.... :)
Sorry about that. Yes, tea would be lovely. Cheers! |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (February 26, 2003):
< Leonhardt's own later recording on DHM is a better performance than on his Telefunken/Teldec...and both of those are much better than his old Vanguard. The last time we talked about this DHM recording, about a year ago, it was available (with samples) on Amazon.de. I haven't checked recently. >
Says it still is. The DHM: Amazon.de
And for listening comparison, here is one of the Teldec issues: Amazon.de |
|
Donald Satz wrote (February 26, 2003):
[To Bradley Lehman] Gramophone doesn't think very well of Tureck's Bach, and neither does Brad. Give Cole a try - you might be surprised, and the cost is quite low. |
|
Peter Bright wrote (February 26, 2003):
[To Donald Satz] "Skilfully remastered, lavishly illustrated and annotated, such work is beyond price, deserving, in the words of that most august publication The Record Guide, 'a heavenful of stars'."
When I last listened to the Cole I found the recording very 'thin' but her performance quite impressively controlled (though a little dull at times). I suspect her approach would be uninteresting to Brad and those others who enjoy a more individualistic approach. From Gramophone:
"Eminently sane, is how I would describe this performance of the Goldbergs (played on a modern copy of a Goujon): no tricks, no showing off, no seeking after effect - just clean, controlled, confident playing." |
|
Artist 2 Hear wrote (February 26, 2003):
Glad to hear that others have noticed what seems to be an elephant in the living room: that the English periodicals consistently bash performances and recordings by non-Brits, while praising their own recordings in the baldest of jingoistic terms. I don't note this even in French music journalism, although the French are reputed to be the most xenophobic. Japanese, German and American journalists are all over the map in their judgements, which I find a sign of ongoing debate, heterodoxy and general intellectual health.
I suppose British orthodoxy is a manifestation of protectionism on behalf of the English recording industry. But, if music journalists in other countries so consistently towed the party line, I wonder if London would still be the center of the HI recording industry.
When, in the pop-music scene in 1950s America, a similar level of bias became evident in radio play-lists, a massive Congressional investigation was launched, culminating in the "Payola" scandal. I think our antennae should go way up whenever such suspicious orthodoxy emerges in arts criticism. I seriously doubt that it is ever accidental.
If there is an English record review that even barely approaches even-handedness, I would like to be told about it, so that I might order a subscription.
P.S. - Case in point. When I mentioned to one well-known British conductor that I was thinking of taking my NYC-based Bach recital series to the Wigmore Hall, conductor replied: "Well, you know we already have some very good harpsichordists in England."
I find this amazing! If we assume that different harpsichordists possess individual artistic voices - a big assumption, if you are English, I guess - why is the potential entry of a new player into the English arena necessarily a threat?
Personally - if asked - I would invite every harpsichordist alive to come to NYC and perform as often as possible (we have had a nice procession in the past few years: Hantai, Schenkman, Rousset, Staier, et al). This would raise the level of perception of the audiences, stimulate greater debate, encourage artistic diversity...all of which are valuable and laudable. And I think the other harpsichordists here feel similarly well-disposed to "foreign competition." |
|
Piotr Jaworski wrote (February 26, 2003):
[To artist2hear] I certainly do not belong to those "others"! What you write about 'Gramophone' is simply nonsense.
Isn't that way that your 'evaluation' has it's roots in you - I imagine that unsuccessful -Wigmore Hall recital? I can imagine that any Polish conductor right on the spot will give you exactly the same answer... Maybe that British conductor only wanted to tell you that they have BETTER harpsichordists there...?
Are you really that good to stand right near to Hantai, Staier or Rousset?!
Don't you think that there are much more appropriate channels of spreading the news about your greatness around the World than this one? The recent lecture of many messages on the Bach Recordings List is really - to some extend - traumatic experience. |
|
William D. Kasimer wrote (February 26, 2003):
< Glad to hear that others have noticed what seems to be an elephant in the living room: that the English periodicals consistently bash performances and recordings by non-Brits, while praising their own recordings in the baldest of jingoistic terms. >
As an exercise, I just visited the Gramophone website and had a look at their "Recommended Recordings". While I think that they lean toward the bland, I fail to see a particularly pro-British slant. |
|
Peter Bright wrote (February 26, 2003):
artist2hear wrote:
< P.S. - Case in point. When I mentioned to one well-known British conductor that I was thinking of taking my NYC-based Bach recital series to the Wigmore Hall, conductor replied: "Well, you know we already have some very good harpsichordists in England." >
I agree with you about Gramophone and the Penguin Guide (although not, by any means, the British newspapers, who often enjoy flogging British musicians, in the case of Jazz with good reason!). The G and P Anglophile angle is often very annoying. Your postscript, though, is unfair. The reason London, in particular, is a great centre for live classical music, is because it throws its net far and wide. Take the Festival Hall, for example, just one of a very many large venues. In one month (March) we have:
Evgeny Kissin (Russia)
Rudi van Dijke (Netherlands)
Mitsuko Uchida (Japan)
The Polish State Opera of Wroclaw (Poland)
Robert Levin (United States)
St Petersburg Quartet (Russia)
Peter Jablonski (Sweden)
Vladimir Ashkenazy (with Sergei Leiferkus, Ilya Levinsky & Elen Prokina)
Timo Korhonen (Finland) (excellent guitarist playing Bach, Henze, Suilamo and Villa-Lobos)
Vanbrugh Quartet (Ireland)
Yekaterina Lebedeva (wonderful young pianist from Russia)
Zurich Opera
Olga Balakleets (Russia)
I've probably missed some, but this is still not bad for one month's international appearances for a single London venue!
Peter
Timo Korhonen |
|
Donald Satz wrote (February 26, 2003):
[To William Kasimer] The British are pro-british, Americans are pro-american. I expect it and do some mental discounting to offset it. It's not a big deal. |
|
Artist 2 Hear wrote (February 26, 2003):
[To William Kasimer] Fair enough. But, when I have picked up Gramophone in the past (roughly 15-20 volumes over the past five years or so; admittedly not a comprehensive view, but arguably enough to get the flavor), I have always been struck by the pro-British bias. Perhaps this depends on which composer's recordings one is sampling.
As far as Mr. Jaworski's comments rather emotional commentary goes, I leave it to other to assess my playing. But, for the record, I have not appeared yet at the Wigmore, having determined for myself that the English scene is just too much of a closed shop. I certainly was not given a bad review. That is not the basis of my complaint, which has rather more to do with what Brad L. commented on: when I purchase the recordings the British journals recommend, I am just bored beyond description.
Actualy, the British conductor in question is quite a fan of my playing, but seems to think that the English need to be shielded from "foreign competition." I have to wonder why. |
|
Peter Bright wro(February 26, 2003):
artist2hear wrote:
< Actualy, the British conductor in question is quite a fan of my playing, but seems to think that the English need to be shielded from "foreign competition." I have to wonder why. >
I'll try again:
In one month at the Festival Hall (March) we have:
Evgeny Kissin (Russia)
Rudi van Dijke (Netherlands)
Mitsuko Uchida (Japan)
The Polish State Opera of Wroclaw (Poland)
Robert Levin (United States)
St Petersburg Quartet (Russia)
Peter Jablonski (Sweden)
Vladimir Ashkenazy (with Sergei Leiferkus, Ilya Levinsky & Elen Prokina)
Timo Korhonen (Finland) (excellent guitarist playing Bach, Henze, Suilamo and Villa-Lobos)
Vanbrugh Quartet (Ireland)
Yekaterina Lebedeva (wonderful young pianist from Russia)
Zurich Opera
Olga Balakleets (Russia)
Some competition!! I'm sure Don is surprised that he felt the need to point out the obvious (in his last post) but never mind.
Time to agree to disagree and get on with the subject of Bach Recordings. |
|
Artist 2 Hear wrote (February 26, 2003):
[To Peter Bright] I don't think I said that the entire English music scene was as narrow as the harpsichord scene, so please don't put words in my mouth.
The group of performers you list above are the tribe of Wanderers who inhabit all the major concert halls in the world. With respect to that tribe, English taste is precisely identical with taste everywhere in the world, because the system of agents and impressarios fosters absolute orthodoxy. In their words, they only present what the public wants, but others see it differently.
Therefore the artists you list (several of whom I have seen recently in New York; Uchida was breathtakingly poetic in her Schumann C-Major Fantasia!!!) don't represent anything at all that is distinctive or unusual or telling about the English musical scene. More interesting, perhaps, is what happens outside of that somewhat predictable arena. Once you look at the harpsichord world in Britain, one sees significantly less internationalism. |
|
Peter Bright wrote (February 26, 2003):
[To artist2hear] Thanks for your point about the less "predictable" musical arena. You are right that there is a relative dearth of solo harpsichord recitals in the larger or more famous venues. I just had a quick look at Wigmore Hall, though, and found that among those Brits playing in the next few months (Pinnock and Gary Cooper), we also have Carole Cerasi (born in Sweden, but first language is French), Rosana Lanalotte (Brazil) and William Christie(born in the States, but since taken French citizenship).
That's not too bad is it? I don't think the British slant can be any worse than elsewhere. Perhaps you mean the less well known venues, halls and churches of the British Isles? Perhaps what you say is true for such places, I really don't know, but smaller venues usually have less financial and organisational clout and this, together with the practicalities and the probability that overseas musicians may not want to play in some unheard of place, may explain the lack of international visitors there. |
|
Laurent Planchon wrote (February 26, 2003):
Piotr Jaworski wrote:
< Maybe that British conductor only wanted to tell you that they have BETTER harpsichordists there...?
Are you really that good to stand right near to Hantai, Staier or Rousset?! >
Who are not precisely English harpsichordists, although Gramophone is very fond of Rousset usually (more that its French counterpart Diapason). |
|
Pete Blue wrote (February 26, 2003):
artist2hear wrote:
< I have always been struck by the pro-British bias. Perhaps this depends on which composer's recordings one is sampling. >
You can delete the "Perhaps". With the mainstream 18th-19th century composers (vis-a-vis early music where theiy're possibly more chauvinistic), while Gramophone is naturally more interested in profiling homeboys, I think they're pretty fair even if I rarely share theiir enthusiasms. True, they are a little too starstruck; they do seem to overpraise the Virtuoso du Jour. This could be a result of their being a monthly magazine, where celebrity parasitism and pandering to a niche market appear to be necessary for survival.
But, bias aside, Brits have a lot to crow about. I've just been listening to Imogen Cooper's peerless Schubert. And Simon Rattle conducting Mahler and Gershwin. And of course the glorious English recording tradition -- just to mention three pianists, there's Gerald Moore, Solomon, Harold Samuel, and I could go on and on.
I know they'll be brought up, so I'll mention Fanfare and ARG. They are bi-monthlies with tiny readerships and so IMO not comparable to Gramophone and of course have their own prejudices, as has been pointed out in the case of ARG. |
|
Artist 2 Hear wrote (February 26, 2003):
I just had a quick look at Wigmore Hall, though, and found that among those Brits playing in the next few months (Pinnock and Gary Cooper), we also have Carole Cerasi (born in Sweden, but first language is French), Rosana Lanalotte (Brazil) and William Christie (born in the States, but since taken French citizenship).
That's not too bad is it? I don't think the British slant can be any worse than elsewhere.
[To Peter Bright] I can only speak of Carole (whom I know from compeititons we both entered, years ago) and Bill (with whom I studied a bit).
Carole, if I recall correctly is a long-term resident of London. And Bill, before he became "more French than the French," spent many years in London as, I believe, an assistant to Christopher Hogwood. (Forgive me, if I get any of these facts a little askew, but I think the recollections are correct.) So one can hardly claim that either of these is an outsider, although the circumstances of their births may be, technically, foreign.
I don't know anything about Rosana Lanalotte. Would love to hear the good news about her, though.
If you ask me whether it seems there are more "outsider" harpsichordists in London or NYC, I would have to say the latter, although the scene here is a smaller one. In typical American style, the public here is - in fact - very suspicious of home-grown talent, preferring to import artists from abroad. That is fine with me, as it enlivens things for everybody. |
|
Pete Blue wrote (February 26, 2003):
[To artist2hear] A closed shop in the U.K. versus antinativism in the U.S. is no surprise, of course. It is a cliche of American cultural history to feel like a stepchild of Europe. There are innumerable instances of American-born artists making careers by disguising or hiding their domestic origin. There's even the famous story of Arthur Rubinstein, a Pole, having his first name changed against his will by Sol Hurok to Artur to sound more foreign! The most famous exceptions of the last century I can think of are George Gershwin and Van Cliburn.
The harpsichord world -- so miniscule, being a subgenre of early music which is a subgenre of classical which is practically off the map in the US music scene --must be unbelievably cutthroat and political. No wonder. |
| |
|
Leonhardt Goldbergs on Vanguard Classics |
|
John Pike wrote (March 14, 2006):
During "A Bach Christmas" on radio 3, an early recording of the Goldbergs by Leonhardt was recommennded. I couldn't get it, but I did manage to get an even earlier one on Vanguard Classics and have just been listening to it. I would be very interested to hear from other list members who know this recording. I think it is superb. I have many recordings on piano which I love, but this harpsichord recording really takes the biscuit. The articulation, tempi, the sound of the instrument, and the general feel of the music are all so beautiful. I felt like I just wanted to dance along with it last night. Brad has commented before, I think, on how much more variety and colour can be gained from a harpsichord compared to a piano, and not just through choice of temperament. I must confess I was a little sceptical until now, but this changed everything for me. For my taste there is even more variety and colour this recording than in any of the piano recordings I have, and the natural
articulation of the instrument and the player's skill gives the music a joy which i haven't experienced before. |
|
Shelly wrote (March 14, 2006):
[To John Pike] What a wonderful plethora the Goldergs offer. It seems every performer's rendition has unique qualities - you'd almost think JS had this in mind when he penned it!
Leonhardt demonstrates my point. This performance, at this tempo, and on this instrument, seems to bring
out the importance of every note and allows it to be heard and savored! |
|
Bradley Lehman wrote (March 16, 2006):
[To John Pike] Sorry to register a bit of disagreement, but I think that both of Leonhardt's later recordings of the Goldbergs are much better than that first Vanguard one. My favorite of his is the one from 1976 that's variously on Pro Arte or Deutsche Harmonia Mundi. His finger control, phrasing, and the instrument's tone are so much better (IMO) than he was able to do in 1953 on that mediocre hpsi (an Ammer, IIRC). He also used a considerably more resonant temperament in the 1960s and 1970s than he did on that 1953 Vanguard set, in equal.
Some of my earlier remarks in this comparison are here: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/NonVocal/Klavier-Goldberg-Leonhardt.htm |
| |
|
