|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
| 1. Pno Con No.3 in c, Op.37: Allegro Con Brio |
| 2. Pno Con No.3 in c, Op.37: Largo |
| 3. Pno Con No.3 in c, Op.37: Rondo (Allegro) |
| 4. Pno Con No.4 in G, Op.58: Allegro Moderato |
| 5. Pno Con No.4 in G, Op.58: Andante Con Moto |
| 6. Pno Con No.4 in G, Op.58: Rondo (Vivace) |
| 7. Rondo in C, Op.51, No.1 |
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
16 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Schnabel Triumphant!,
By Ralph J. Steinberg "Lover of German Music" (New York, NY United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)
This review is from: Beethoven: Piano Concerto No. 3, Piano Concerto No. 4 (Audio CD)
As we enter the 21st Century, there are some things that remain immutable. One of them is Artur Schnabel's supremacy as THE interpreter of Beethoven's piano music. I don't care how primitive the sound quality of his recordings may be (this transfer is actually very good), his is the vision of Beethoven for all time. His greatness lies not in technical virtuosity (he was lazy at practicing) but in his projection of both the architecture and the emotions and psychological underpinnings of the music. Even in the most quiet of passages, there is always a subtle tension underlying his playing that becomes thrilling with each repeated hearing. The intense conflict of the C-minor's First Movement Cadenza is alone worth the price of the set. It's double fortunate that such a fine-sounding transfer is available at such a reasonable price. I really don't know of any modern versions of these works that even approach the Schnabel performances. On to the "Emperor" Concerto, please!
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
versions that have much to teach us on how to perform Beethoven today, things that Schnabel knew and that we forgot,
By
This review is from: Beethoven: Piano Concerto No. 3, Piano Concerto No. 4 (Audio CD)
Given the historical importance of Artur Schnabel's Beethoven recordings, and that his complete cycle of sonatas (the first ever to be recorded) was never out of the catalog since its original publication on 78rpms under the auspices of the British Beethoven Society between 1933 and 1935, I find it incomprehensible and shocking that EMI should never have taken the care to reissue on CD his complete traversal of the concertos, recorded with Malcolm Sargent between 1932 and 1935. Only in the case of the 2nd Piano Concerto was it a premiere recording - Kempff with Peter Raabe came first, in 1925, for the First, Mark Hambourg and the LSO under Sargent already took the head start in the 3rd in 1929 (Mark Hambourg (1879/1960)), and there were two or three previous recordings of both the 4th and the Emperor (including versions by Backhaus and the LSO under Landon Ronald in 1930 and 1927, Plays Beethoven) before Schnabel's. But, as a complete cycle, it was indeed a premiere, and more important still, from their publication Schnabel's versions became the accepted yardstick against which to compare all the others, and retained that referential (should I write reverential) status until World War II and after (Schnabel's Beethoven was the major influence on young Glenn Gould, too).
So thanks to Naxos for reissuing them, in their invaluable Historical series devoted to the preservation of that historical heritage from the 78rmps era in the best possible transfers. In fact, I don't have this particular reissue, but Dante's equally (but more litterally also) invaluable 14-CD box collating all of Schabel's Beethoven recordings from the early 1930s, the concerto cycle with Sargent plus the complete sonatas, the Bagatelles op. 33 and 126, the variations op. 34, Eroica and Diabelli, and with the remake of the Emperor with the Philharmonia under Galliera from 1947 as a bonus (Sonatas & Concertos). A great box, in transfers that have relatively loud swishing surface noise but great instrumental clarity, and that I was fortunate to find just recently at the "real" store for a two-digit figure. So obviously I don't know how the Naxos transfer compares, although Mark Obert-Thorn is a byword for transfer wizardry. But I just want to point out to the potential buyer what interpretive gems these recordings are. So Schnabel was considered, before World War II and even after, as the epitome of Beethoven playing, the model against which all others were compared. He re-recorded 2 to 5 (why not 1 I don't know) in 1946-7, with the Philharmonia under Issay Dobrowen and (in the Emperor) Alceo Galliera, although the 3rd was not published until 1957 (for that story, see my review of the Testament reissue). They've been CD-reissued in 1993 by Testament (Piano Concerti 3 & 4 and Piano Concerti 2 & 5). There is also a 1942 recording of 4 & 5 with the Chicago Symphony under Frederick Stock (Piano Concerti 4 & 5), which I haven't heard (Schnabel, a Jew, left Berlin in 1933, first establishing in England, then immigrating to the US in 1939 and becoming a US citizen in 1944). Yet, with Schnabel's reputation of a "classic" Beethoven interpretor (which is possibly not exactly the same thing as a "classicist"), many listeners are likely to be shocked by these readings: in the outer movements, they are (almost) uniquely swift. You think Rubinstein and Toscanini were fast in their 1944 recording of the 3rd Piano Concerto (Violin & Piano Concertos)? Compare their 15:23 in the first movement, to Schnabel and Sargent's 14:59, their 8:17 in the finale to Schnabel's 7:53. The young American firebrands from the late 1950s/early 1960s, Julius Katchen (with Pierro Gamba, Piano Concertos 3-5) and Leon Fleisher (with George Szell, Beethoven: The 5 Piano Concertos / Mozart: Concerto No. 25 ~ Fleisher) were no laggards. Yet they were at respectively 16:49 / 8:43 and 15:17 / 8:29. And while Serkin-Bernstein in 1964 are about as swift in the first movement (Bernstein Century - Beethoven: Piano Concertos No. 3 and 5 / New York Philharmonic), I have heard no one that was as fast as Schnabel in the finale. If I've added "almost" in paranthesis before my "uniquely swift", it is because in fact, though interpretive styles and customs have dramatically slowed down after WWII (under the pretence of probing "deeper"; and sure, ponderousness is likely to dig deeper, especially when you are trudging on muddy tracks), such brisk tempos were more the norm before and even some time afer WWII. In the outer movements of the 4th, I've heard a number of versions from those years that were as fast as or faster than Schnabel's, including from conductors whom you'd later easily associate with more stately approaches (but I'm out of authorized product links): for instance, Böhm with Gieseking in 1939 (ASIN B000H4VZ80 on Naxos), Ormandy with Casadesus in 1947 (ASIN B000PTYS04) are faster in the first movement. In comparison to them, Schnabel sounds remarkably gentle and lyrical. But in the finale, among those I've heard, only Fleisher with Szell is swifter. So performance habits HAVE drammatically changed. I've been lately listening to many of those earlier versions, and that may account for the fact that I am not shocked in the least by Schnabel. On the contrary, I find that the approach elicits a great sense of urgency, dynamism, energy, elated joy, imperiousness in the 3rd concerto (with something upliftingly motoric in the strings' ostinato sixteenth notes at 7:07 in the first movement), and excitement that are often amiss in the more stately interpretations, but with no loss of lyricism, and a great feeling of naturalness. The finales are simply irresistible, exuding a Mozartean "joie-de-vivre": not many since have captured this ebullience, this sheer joy of making music. And I'll add, as a side consideration, that Beethoven was reported to have played his own concertos at frenetic speeds. So whatever you think of Schnabel, his approach is arguably closer to what the composer had in mind than any of your more stately approach (which of course does not in itself invalidate the latter). But where Schnabel strays from the fast approaches of Rubinstein (in the 3rd), Gieseking or Casadesus (in the 4th), and probably of Beethoven is in his slow movements. Unlike them, he is here, in more "modern" fashion, very expansive and dreamy. A remarkable feature there is also that, in the Largo of the 3rd PC, Schnabel keeps the sustaining pedal depressed in the opening statement of the theme (and on its return later), thus blurring the harmonies and making it sound almost like Debussy. Truth is, it's hard to tell with the loud swish of the 1933 recording, and it is much more in evidence in the 1947 remake. Another remarkable feature in the same movement is how Schnabel plays the arpeggios at 4:17 as a mere "halo" of sound, letting bassoon and flute assume the main role here. Schabel had the reputation of hating the recording studio, and always prefering music to digitial perfection. Yet I hear no digital weaknesses here. On the contrary, the precision and digital fleetness are awesome (especially at those tempos), and put at the service of an admirable equality and delicacy of touch, never percussive as it could be with Casadesus or Serkin (to say nothing of Gould!). Sargent offers strong support, with only very occasional whiffs of the old-fashioned and sentimental portamento. Schnabel's conception didn't change radically over the years, and his 1946-1947 remakes with the Philharmonia under Dobrowen are quite similar to these - although marginally mellower and less biting in the 3rd, and, almost imperceptibly so, in the finale of the 4th. I don't find either that, in Testament's transfers, the 1947 recording of the 3rd is sonically all that superior to the previous one; the 4th is better (see my reviews for more details). Hence my preference for the earlier recordings, added, of course, to their historical significance. The Dante set is hard to find at reasonable prices and these Naxos Historicals are cheap and widely circulated. The liner notes can be consulted on the website of Naxos. The essay by Nalen Anthoni is very informative; but I must take exception with one of his statements: "he [Schnabel] lengthened or foreshortened phrases at will and he varied the pulse, sometimes restlessly, particularly in fast movements. It was a personal form of expression, his musical hallmark so to speak, but the large fluctuations of speed in parts of the first movement of the Third Concerto are unusual, and they need to be understood in context. The scores available then had the wrong time signature. Their marking indicated a tempo double that which was required to make sense of the way the music is laid out. Intuitively, Schnabel and Sargent must have realised the error because the pacing of the orchestral introduction and the pianist's initial contributions is moderate, but in the absence of official confirmation for this speed, which was not available until Beethoven's autograph manuscript was rediscovered many years after the last war, Schnabel's hurrying at later stages suggests a conflict between what he instinctively felt was right and what he was led to believe the composer wanted." What the hell is he talking... Read more ›
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Passionate about music?
Learn more at SoundUnwound, the personal music encyclopedia, or challenge your friends with our music quizzes.
