Donald:

>>Channel Classics recently issued Wispelwey's recording of Bach's cello
>>suites.  Previously released was his recording of Beethoven's cello
>>sonatas.  What do list members think of Wispelwey in this repertoire
>>compared to other period instrument recordings?

Henk:

>It is his second recording of Bach's suites.  Some like the first one
>better.  Others cannot hear the difference.  Only Suzuki (the brother
>who plays cello) could be a serious match for Wispelwey - on gut-strings.
>I still prefer Casals in general and Rostropovic among the more recent
>releases.

Suzuki a match for Wispelwey? I don't think so!  Hearing Suzuki try to
play these suites was one of the most horrible experiences of my life.
It's not just that the man plays hopelessly out of tune, even more than
Bylsma in his second set.  No, the worst thing is that he doesn't seem
to understand a bit of what he is doing.  Everything sounds forced and
the music is killed by a lack of air.  It's a pity, because Suzuki uses
a beautiful instrument, a very old Amati if I remember well.

Wispelwey's playing cannot be compared to Suzuki's.  He treats the music
for what it is: preludes followed by dance pieces.  Everything sounds
light and transparent, and the phrasing is natural - though Wispelwey
probably hasn't read yet Bylsma's new book on the subject of phrasing in
the suites.  What irritates me with a lot of perfomers is that they tackle
the Cello Suites with too much respect.  They want to show how important
this music is, and by doing so they force their own personality on it.
Wispelwey doesn't need this.  He lets the music speak for itself with these
incredibly fresh readings.  The booklet contains an interesting treatise on
the logical order of the suites.

Frank