Robert Schumann (1810-1856)
      Kreisleriana, Op.16

Schumann composed Kreisleriana in just four days and only a few weeks
after he completed Kinderszenen.  Kreisleriana has a literary reference
from a series of articles written by E.T.A.  Hoffmann about a Kapellmeister
named Johannes Kreisler who hovers between eccentricity and madness.
Come to think of it, Hoffmann also hovered between eccentricity and
madness.  Throw Schumann into the mix, and we have "three wild and
crazy guys".

But there is more to Kreisleriana than the three gentlemen above.
Schumann was forbidden to see his beloved Clara, and the torment he
conjured up is certainly coveyed in the work.  Further, there's the
Florestan/Eusebius fractured personalities which are an integral part
of Schumann's Kreisleriana.  Although both Schumann alter-egos have their
virtues, both are one-dimensional and have major failings.  Florestan,
a man of total action, gives no thought to impacts or the needs of others.
Eubsebius, for all his deep thought and consideration, never accomplishes
anything or participates in life.

Given three wild and crazy guys, internal torment, and fractured
personalities, it is no surprise that Kreisleriana paints extremely
diverse pictures in sudden and volatile mood swings.  Moderation has
nothing to do with this work; Schumann's psychology wouldn't allow it.

There are eight movements to Kreisleriana, and most of them are in rondo
form with one or two interludes.  If the primary subject is from Florestan,
the interlude is from Eusebius and vice versa.  However, life isn't quite
that simple.  As the review progresses, it will become clear that the
emotional states from the primary subjects are often lurking about in
the interludes; I can't stress strongly enough how important it is for
the pianist to convey the duality of the interludes.  Not doing so
diminishes the true portraits of Schumann, Hoffmann, and Kreisler and
is also less compelling as a musical experience.

The following twenty-two performances are reviewed in Part 1:

Geza Anda..............Testament 1069 (1955)
Martha Argerich........Deutsche Grammophon 410653 (1984)
Alfred Brendel.........Philips 434732 (1980)
Shura Cherkassky.......Philips 456745 (1984)
Alfred Cortot..........Philips 456751 (1935)
Monique Duphil.........Eclectra 2043 (1996)
Irina Edelstein........Sonora 22577 (1997)
Walter Gieseking.......Classica D'Oro 3022 (1942)
Walter Gieseking.......BBC Legends 4030 (1953)
Vladimir Horowitz......Sony 42409 (1969)
Vladimir Horowitz......Philips 456838 (1985)
Jurgis Karnavichius....High Definition Classics 12 (DDD)
Wilhelm Kempff.........Deutsche Grammophon 435045 (1972)
Evgeny Kissin..........RCA 68911 (1997)
Benno Moiseiwitsch.....Pearl 9192 (1961)
Heinrich Neuhaus.......Russian Compact Disc 16246 (1951)
Miceal O'Rourke........Chandos 9388 (1992)
Maurizio Pollini.......Deutsche Grammophon 471370 (2001)
Jerome Rose............Monarch Classics 2006 (2001)
Arthur Rubinstein......RCA 63052 (1964)
Burkard Schliessmann...Bayer 100311 (2000)
Elisso Wirssaladze.....Live Classics 311 (1991)

Admin.  Notes - I did not provide a recording date for the Karnavichius
performance on HCD, because none is listed.  Given the DDD identification
and the sound characteristics, I'd estimate a recording date in the early
1990's.  I have not heard of Karnavichius, and the disc's liner notes
do not mention him.  Concerning price, the disc costs less than a Naxos
CD.

Let's move on to the music:

1st Movement (Agitatissimo) - Schumann starts us off with highly agitated
music of power, speed, and even wild desperation with asecending triplet
figures ever prevalent.  Eusebius enters with the Interlude and takes
the upper-voice melody line, but Florestan is ever-present in the churning
lower voices; it is Florestan and Eusebius set against one another which
constitutes the heart of this interlude.

The least compelling readings come from O'Rourke and Duphil.  Micael
O'Rourke is rather mundane in the primary subject, displaying insufficient
tension.  In the Interlude he gives little attention to Florestan, and there
are many other versions which better bring out the Eusebius nuances.  Duphil
is fine in the Interlude, but her primary subject is too predictable and
tame.

Moving up a step, we find Argerich, Wirrsaladze, Kissin, Pollini, and
Karnavichius.  Overall, I find Martha Argerich's performance on the polite
side with a demure Interlude; it is beautifully played, but the contrasts
could have been much more pronounced.  Elisso Wirrsaladze, Evgeny Kissin,
and Maurizio Pollini are a little low on poignancy in the Interlude, well
surpassed by many other versions.  The Karnavichius reading is a fine one,
particularly effective with its powerful and highly concentrated primary
subject.

Jerome Rose offers a performance memorable for its 'gang-busters' primary
subject that's almost as wild as Gieseking's.  Unfortunately, Rose's upper
voice in the Interlude is a far distance from piercing the heart and his
fast tempo definitely adds to the drawback.

Exceptional versions are handed in by Alfred Cortot and Shura Cherkassky.
Both are highly energized with fine tension in the primary subject, and
their Interludes have a dream-like quality which blends beautifully with
their softly churning lower voices.

Also exceptional are the Horowitz readings.  In the '69' performance,
he is powerfully driven in the primary subject and quite poignant in the
Interlude; my sole complaint is his tendency to clip upper voice notes in
the Interlude.  The '85' performance finds Horowitz slower in the primary
subject, but with greater nuance and detail.  Fortunately, he holds the
clipped notes to a minimum this time around.  The sound quality is fine
in both releases, the earlier Sony having excellent clarity for the date
of the recording session.

Two additional exceptional versions come from Heinrich Neuhaus and Geza
Anda who present far different approaches from one another.  Neuhaus is
loaded with nervous energy and a jittery nature which is very appealing
in the Interlude.  In contrast, Anda flows smoothly and offers a very
poignant Interlude.  Both are appropriately powerful and tense in the
primary subject.

 From my view, three versions are outstanding.  One of them is the
Moiseiwitsch on Pearl where the intensity couldn't be stronger throughout
the performance; Florestan shares equal billing with Euseibius in the
Interlude.  My only reget concerns the poor sound which is riddled with
interfering debris which greatly washes out Moiseiwitsch's Interlude.
That I can derive significant impact is very revealing of Moiseiwitsch's
immersion in Schumann's extreme psychology.

Rubinstein gives a very detailed and commanding reading in stark sound;
the Interlude finds him highly poetic with Florestan lurking from the
foundation.

Irina Edelstein is not a well-known pianist, but she more than holds
her own in highly distinguished company.  Although her primary subject
is played excellently, it's the Interlude where she offers a unique
performance; Edelstein plays all notes in a detached manner.  These
are not clipped or staccato notes, just simply without any legato.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect very little in the absence of
any legato, but such is not the case.  Edelstein essentially changes the
nature of the Interlude by conveying to us a hyped-up blend of Florestan
and Eusebius.  Actually, my feeling is that she gives us Schumann himself.
At any rate, Edelstein's Interlude is like no other and demands to be
heard.

There are five versions which continue to astound me no matter how many
times I listen to them: Kempff, Brendel, both Giesekings, and Schliessmann.
Wilhelm Kempff's version is a marvel of detail, and I guarantee you will
hear more of the movement's architecture from him than from any other
pianist.  His x-ray examination of every note and phrase comes without
any cost to the emotional themes of the music.

Alfred Brendel has a tremendous accumulation and concentration of energy
in the primary subject, sounding as if he's sucking all of it up with
great determination.  In the Interlude, I couldn't ask for a more incisive
mix of Florestan and Eusebius; the urgency is just perfect.

In contrast to Brendel, Gieseking's readings have the effect of releasing
huge bursts of energy with a wild display which puts Schumann, his
alter-egos, Hoffmann, and Kreisler in an over-the-edge frame of mind.
Gieseking takes us on one a hell of a ride, and I personally never want
to get off.

I should mention a couple of negatives to Gieseking's two similar versions
which might loom very large for some listeners.  First, sound quality
is quite bad in both recordings.  It isn't as poor as what Moiseiwitsch
has to endure, but it's on the low end.  Second, Gieseking does not gives
us repeats which explains why both performances are under 1 1/2 minutes
in length.

Yes, it's wonderful to hear a fantastic performance in state of the
art sound, and that's what we get from Burkard Schliessmann and Bayer.
There isn't a more powerful and tension-laden version on the market, and
I'm most impressed with his all-consuming bass strokes.  Schliessmann
dives head-first into the music and never comes up for air.  As for the
Interlude, he employs highly varied rhythmic patterns that are very
refreshing.

2nd Movement (Con molta espressione, non troppo presto) - If anyone new
to Schumann's music wants to hear how his mind works, this movement is
the answer.  It is also the most musically effective representation of
the Florestan and Eusebius alter-egos.  At almost 10 minutes in length
and having two Interludes, the movement is also the heart and soul of
Kreisleriana.

It all begins with a comforting refrain which is taken over by a pleading
from the soprano voice which is about the most poignant effect I've ever
encountered; this is music to melt one's heart.  The 1st Interlude is
fast, sharp, and playful.  If Schumann had simply finished off with a
repeat of the primary subject, the movement would still be transcendent.
But he goes on his inventive way with a super-charged and frenzied 2nd
Interlude followed by a stunningly varied recapitulation of the primary
subject.  The movement is a full-course meal that never ceases to capture
my my soul.

O'Rourke's performance is again the least rewarding.  His Eusebius is a
plodder without imagination, and his Florestan can be flabby with weak
attacks when least expected or wanted; these are not the alter-egos that
Schumann created.

"Elisso" is a few steps up from O'Rourke but nothing to get excited
about.  Her poignancy and nuance are not at high levels, and the primary
subject is lacking in offering comfort as she takes a rather demonstrative
stand.  Rubinstein's problem is a tame Florestan without much tension;
there is absolutely nothing on the wild side here.  Kissin, although
poignant enough in the primary theme, doesn't deliver the strong tension
needed for the 2nd Interlude.

Irina Edelstein gives a wonderful performance of the 2nd Movement until
the 2nd Interlude comes along.  Her phrasing in the primary subject is
heart-melting, and she does begin the 2nd Interlude with fine tension
and accumulation of energy.  Then, all of a sudden, she holds back and
goes limp just when the energy needs to be released in great torrents.
It's a bad move and does much damage to the music's sweep and coherence.
In essence, Edelstein takes Florestan to the brink of annihilating his
enemy, then has him withdraw.  The problem with this approach is that
Florestan *never* recedes; that is contrary to Schumann's conception and
a musical failure as well.

I don't find the bright Sony soundstage for Horowitz conducive
for providing the warmth and comfort that's required for the primary
subject; the soprano melody, particularly when Horowitz is pleading, has
a detached and grating quality which skews balances.  On the plus side,
both Interludes are excellent and Horowitz offers the darkness of
Schumann's thoughts as well as any other pianist.

Wilhelm Kempff's is another fine version, but two features keep it from
being outstanding.  First, his phrasing in the primary subject isn't
going to melt anyone's heart, sounding a little stilted.  Second, I find
him a little too relaxed in the 2nd Interlude and not quite in sync with
Florestan's mode of operation.  However, the detail offered by Kempff
remains exceptional, and his 1st Interlude reveals more of the architecture
than any other version.

Monique Duphil gives a fine performance with much poignancy in the primary
subject and strength in the Interludes.  I suppose it's just the luck
of the draw, but I listened to Duphil in tandem with Moiseiwitsch and
Cortot; Duphil is far below their exalted levels of tension and poignancy.

Karnavichius continues to satisfy.  Although his primary subject isn't
the most poignant around, it is very comforting.  Further, he gives
Florestan a tension not found in many other versions.

Moving up another notch, we have Cherkassky who misses out on an
outstanding performance by sounding a little rushed at times in the
primary subject and displaying some inconsistency in the tension of the
2nd Interlude.  Of course, Cherkassky's intent is to inject some contrast
into the 2nd Interlude, but I feel that he overdoes it.

Other excellent versions at Cherkassky's level include the Neuhaus,
Pollini, Schliessmann, Brendel, and Rose.  Each of these versions is a
little behind the best interpretations in emotional depth and tension.
Pollini's interpretation of the primary subject is interesting for its
quick tempo and obvious injection of Florestan, but the approach isn't
conducive for piercing a listener's heart.

With the above versions out of the way, I am left with 7 dynamite
performances: Anda, Argerich, Moiseiwitsch, Horowitz '85', Cortot, and
both Gieseking interpretations.  These are the versions which convey the
greatest contrast between Eusebius and Florestan, can melt your heart
in the primary subject, and deliver highly concentrated and tremendous
bursts of energy accumulation and release in the 2nd Interlude.

I do have two favorite versions - both Giesekings.  Best of all, the
two are not clones of one another.  Their primary subjects are where the
major differences exist.  Gieseking '53' is slow, smooth, and penetrating;
in '42' he is bold, angular, and magnificently confident.  There are
wrong notes in both performances, but the other historical versions also
have their fair share.  Also, the sound in both performances again leaves
much to be desired.  No matter, these interpretations easily transcend
the audio considerations.

3rd Movement (Molto agitato) - In this movement, Florestan dominates
the primary subject while Eusebius takes the Interlude.  However, the
primary subject is so short that it can seem like the introduction to
the Eusebius music.  However short, the primary theme concludes the piece
with thundering frenzy of activity, insuring that this short theme with
dotted rhythms and a galloping pace will linger in the memory.

Breathing room is always significant for Eusebius, but it can also have
a role for Florestan.  Geza Anda's performance is well under 3 minutes
and does not allow sufficient breathing room, particularly in the primary
subject.  He's so fast that Florestan sounds more like a caricature than
Schumann's alter-ego.  Also, Anda's Interlude finds many of the nuances
going by with little notice.

Monique Duphil's performance is another one that I have no desire to
hear in the future.  Her primary subject isn't particularly tense or
driven; it's just blatant and loud.  In the Interlude, Duphil's phrasing
is not supple and doesn't flow with the desired continuity.

I also can't work up much enthusiasm for Wilhelm Kempff's reading, as I
find his phrasing to be problematic throughout the 3rd Movement.  In the
primary subject, Kempff uses what I'd call 'cute' phrasing which detracts
from the seriousness of Florestan's purposes.  In the Interlude, the
phrasing is again a little stilted and uninteresting as it is in Kempff's
2nd Movement.

Irina Edelstein's performance is a fine one displaying much drive in the
Florestan music, though I sense that she places more priority on detail
in the Interlude than probing any emotional depths.  Kissin's, Rose's,
Elisso's, and O'Rourke's readings also have plenty of muscle and drive,
but the Interludes are neither deep nor detailed.

Of the outstanding versions, Brendel is dramatic, Argerich is dreamy
and gorgeous, Cherkassky is boldly detailed, Gieseking '53' offers high
tension, and Karnavichius delivers concentrated energy and poignancy.
Moiseiwitsch, Pollini, Nuehaus, Rubinstein, and both Horowitz versions
are memorable for their exceptional mix of power and poetry.

My favorite interpretations of the 3rd Movement come from Cortot,
Schliessmann, and Gieseking '42'.  Alfred Cortot's phrasing and inflections
in the Interlude just about envelop my heart, and his Florestan is a
powerful and determined entity.  Although Argerich's Interlude is a
gorgeous creation, it can't quite match the beauty of the Schliessmann
reading which is mesmorizing with its exquisite phrasing and aura of
mystery.

Nobody ever surpassed Gieseking for highlighting Schumann's most extreme
and desperate emotions, and his 1942 3rd Movement is an absolutely wild
presentation with an Interlude of the utmost urgency.  When listening,
I always feel as if I'm going to be launched into outer space.

Part 1 Concluding Comments - The most rewarding versions have come
from Brendel, Cortot, Cherkassky, Argerich, Schliessmann, Moiseiwitsch,
Nuehaus, Horowitz '85', and both Gieseking performances.  These artists
are all legendary in stature except for Schliessmann who might well
attain that designation in the decades ahead.  More than any other
modern-day pianist, he reminds me of the great pianists of the early
20th century concerning rhythmic variety and a penchant for going his
own way.

The least enjoyable issues belong to O'Rourke, Duphil, Kissin, and Elisso.
I have been most disappointed in Elisso who hasn't been very comforting
or poignant in the Eusebius music; although her Florestan has displayed
much strength and excitement, she is still well behind the likes of a
Gieseking or Cortot.

I intend to finish my review of these 22 initial versions in Part 2, so
I'll be back in a couple of weeks.  The one thought I most want to convey
at this time is the high level of artistry of the performances.  When
an excellent Schumann performer such as Jurgis Karnavichius is simply
in the middle of the pack, I know that the quality of my listening
experiences is high indeed.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]