Customer Reviews

Beethoven: Concerto Nos. 4 & 5

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The disparaging review below notwithstanding, Van Cliburn shows in these recordings what a magnificent pianist he was. Indeed: in my estimation, the performance of the G Major concerto is the finest committed to recording, and I have heard scores of them. And the "Emperor" is also on the short list of the best two or three recorded renderings. If the Leon Fleischer/George Szell recording wins the laurels in the "Emperor" category, this version gives it a run for its money. The recording quality is classic RCA, rich and reverberant, rather than the edgy-though-brilliant Columbia style of the Fleischer/Szell performance. How one can belittle Cliburn's playing is beyond me. It must be a personal distaste... and indeed, one can love or NOT love a pianist's style... but that still should not blind one to their ability. I find Kovacevich a little sedate for my tastes; Uchida, always a little too slow in the tempi; but I acknowledge their stature as great pianists. This "Emperor" is big-boned, full-bodied, and powerful; yet never stodgy or pompous. The ravishing slow movement has never been more moving nor more beautiful. The contrasts in the first movement between the kaleidoscopic mood-shifts are expertly negotiated. And the humor is not missed, either: the engaging duet between the piano and timpani in the coda of the finale is wonderful.

But it is the Fourth Concerto, the G Major, that is the gem on this disc. Cliburn's playing is flawless: of the highest caliber of virtuosity yet without a hint of meretriciousness. And Reiner's and the Chicago's orchestral playing is a worthy pairing. From the opening piano section, played with an utter and limpid simplicity, through the hushed orchestral entrance which builds to that remarkable climax, where Beethoven, achieving the seemingly impossible, turns a root-position tonic chord into a dissonance-- and throughout, the dialog between piano and orchestra is a marvel of quiet elation. The rendering of the slow movement is somewhat controversial: instead of extremely short, staccato phrases in the low strings, as has become the performance tradition, Reiner holds the unison strings a heartbeat longer, still in concord with the written score, but instead of making the strings seem nervous or twitchy, they sound heavy and menacing, and every bit as brusque as the "standard" way of playing them; it makes the entreaties of the piano that much more poignant, and the final capitulation of the unison strings that much more amazing; when near the end the strings play their "anger" motif three times, pianissimo, almost reflectively, before melting at last into almost painfully moving chords, it is a miracle, and no other recording captures Beethoven's inspiration better. After a movement of such intensity, the entrance of the rondo finale is perfectly modulated, and the high spirits seem to have a depth they would not have had without the immediate prior experience of the slow movement. Again, Reiner and Cliburn are perfect. There is a quality, despite the largeness of the Chicago orchestra, of chamber music about the performance. And Cliburn's pianism is like a perfectly cut, flawless diamond, crisp, shining, yet having fire within. Either performance on this disc is well worth seeking out, even if you already have half a dozen versions of either concerto. To have both on one disc is a gift, a bargain of the first water, and one should not hesitate. Listen to them without distractions, with the volume turned up, and give them your full attention: you will have an artistic experience of uncommon depth and exhiliration.

There is a bit of irony in the Beethoven 4th Piano Concerto with Reiner, Cliburn and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. At the time of the recording Reiner's health was poor. Word had it that "the old man" - as some of the locals called him - had to be all but helped up to the podium. Oddly enough, over 20 years before that Frederick Stock recorded the Beethoven 4th with Artur Schnabel. That would also be his final recording with Chicago.

Both the Stock and Reiner recordings are well done. (I have all ready reviewed the Schnabel recordings which remain today as standards of both the 4th and 5th concertos). Reiner, despite his health problems, still had the ability to make this a good performance. Somehow the chemistry between Reiner and Cliburn resulted in above board performances of the works they collaborated on.

The Chicago Symphony was still at its peak during this period and produced some of its best ever recordings. The balance between soloist and orchestra is well done as is the overall sound. While neither performance can be placed in rank with a Schnabel, Brendel or Fleisher they should be most satisfying to the listener. RCA also manages to bring out the excellent ensemble balance that the orchestra had during that period with its wind and brass sections.

Those who admired (or still admire) Reiner or Cliburn will not be disapointed with either performance. The recordings that Fritz Reiner made with the Chicago Symphony shall always remain as important musical contributions and - in some ways - definitive performances.

Everyone loves the Emperor Concerto (#5) but my favorite will always be the Piano Concerto #4. Van Cliburn performs brilliantly and the music so moving it brings tears to the eyes.

Is this 4th piano concerto the work of a young composer as some French critic recently wrote ? Can we also say that Beethoven has come to the end of the possibilities of this form as the same critic said too ? This is absurd in a way since Beethoven is far from having finished using the concerto. This 4th concerto may be intimate, may be looking for and meeting a woman, in phase with the fantasmagoric desires of the critic. But this does not explain the musical language of this concerto. The piano starts the first movement and the orchestra sweeps into this opening lightly and with no violence. Vast ascending and descending movements of the piano are followed by the orchestra in two different ways. First one or two groups of instruments answer the piano and start having a dialog with it. Then the orchestra follows suit and creates a musical background against which the piano can measure itself. This first movement is thus built on the repetition of a simple motif of four notes ( we know how Beethoven liked such motifs and the fateful destiny they introduced due to the both cosmic and christic vision that this number four conveys in us all, since the Cross and for even quite a longer period of time) and their tempo, as if the music was trying to cut through a gordian knot to allow the delivery of the music of a far away somewhere else expressed by the piano that looms up here and there and leads the whole movement, but never for very long. The second movement opens with the strings. Dramatic, dark, maybe menacing. The piano itself is light, small, frail, like a new-born baby the orchestra maybe wants to bring to life, an ambition that is rythmically accompanied by the strings that repeat here again a theme of four notes and its more balanced, more swinging rhythm, more binary and maybe more martial, cutting the four notes in two equal halves, as opposed to the preceding movement's motif that had three short notes followed by one longer one. The third movement is invisible, if we can say so, and it ties up its turning but not yet whirling rondo to this clandestine birth. We can feel the waltz coming up that will triumph soon, but it is still a fast three beat chase in a rather rough, gravelly universe far from all the salons. So, can we say it is the work of a young or even youngish composer ? Certainly not, except if we believe Jesus Christ was young when he was crucified and that his death was a youthful act if not desire. Fate contains and conveys birth, even if only a potential birth. A perfectly mature work in which fate already knocks twice and infiltrates the unavoidable dialectic of the individual against the whole, of the piano solo against the mesmerizing orchestra, even if for Beethoven the piano forte of his time was far from what he probably imagined in his inner mental ear. The birth of an individual in a unanimistic society ? Or the vision of the impossible victory of the individual in a homogenizing society ? Probably both and in this direction Beethoven is faustian, but referring to the Second Part of Goethe's tragedy, because this never played second part of Faust is definitely a tragedy.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Paris Dauphine & University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne

It appears that Texas needed to list at least one classicalpianist andnative son Van Cliburn becamethe objectof much ballyhoo, hoo, hoo, hoo! a studious peformance ofthe Beethoven"Emperor" Even thegreat Fritz Reiner can't muster much enthusiasm and gives us an atypical limp rendition. want a muscularrendition that invigorates: the early Rudolph Serkin will fit the bill. for a more lyricaland more mature the very last Serkin with Ozawa conductingthe Bostonwould be my choice but many might prefer the Rubinstein with the maestro at hispeak.I own a dozen "Emperors" and would give none up exceptthe Cliburn;another fine choice is the Murray Perhaya scintilating modern rendition and for a historical performance the Horowits phenomenal fingering outof synch with Toscanini who as always insisted on metronomic accuracy:they battled and Horowits won . . .and so did we!(I owned thisone on a 78 rpm record which, fortunatelyI tranferred to cassette (with noise reduction, natch.)