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

4th Movement(Lento assai) - In the 4th Movement, the rhetorical
primary subject finds Florestan and Eusebius engaged in a conversation;
this is exquisitely sad music with Florestan providing contrast through
his demonstrative lower voice grumblings.  The Interlude reaches for
self-realization with a lilting quality that is irresistable.  Essentially,
the primary subject/interlude sequence becomes recitative/aria in nature.

Each of the twenty-two versions made my 'first cut', and I have to say
that there isn't any great difference in quality among them.  However,
some comments about a few performances are in order.  Jerome Rose is
very fast in the Interlude, and that always presents a potential problem
in conveying the music's nuances.  Pianists such as Anda and Moiseiwitsch
can conquer the situtation, but Rose isn't quite up to the task.

Both Argerich and Cherkassky are transcendent in their presentations of
Eusebius - so warm and poignant.  Pollini injects more of Florestan into
his interpretation for enhanced drama, yet he still maintains the warmth
found with Argerich and Cherkassky.  Cortot doesn't shrink when it comes
to offering warmth, but it is the confidence of his ascendency in the
Interlude that most attracts me.

Horowitz takes place of place with his performance from the 1980's on
Philips.  I earlier mentioned the importance of the dialogue between
Eusebius and Florestan in the primary subject, and nobody gives a reading
of greater definition than Horowitz as his articulation and accenting
are something to behold.

5th Movement(Vivace assai) - The primary subject begins in a highly
demonstrative and rather menacing fashion with very sharp and impetuous
phrasing.  Then, it is taken over by a lovely ascending melody presented
with increasing urgency which is also manifest in the Interlude which
has a most exciting and surprising conclusion.

Among the less rewarding versions, Anda's is too fast and rounded in
the primary subject; menace and 'snap' are in low supply.  Rose is also
rounded, and that surprises me based on his general peferences.  I find
the Horowitz/Philips performance an alien concoction.  Horowitz takes
the urgency out of the ascending melody in the primary subject and
frequently plays in an overblown and romanticized fashion elsewhere;
a mixture of 'weak and overblown' is not enticing.

Moiseiwitsch gives a fairly messy performance with wrong notes and awkward
phrasing; he also tends to have slow-down moments in the primary subject
which kill the flow.  Sad to say, I've never heard him sound worse.

O'Rourke has been at the bottom of the group from the beginning, and
there's nothing in his 5th Movement to alter the pattern.  Lacking in
fluidity and tension, his interpretations are easily forgettable.  In
the 5th Movement, these same comments apply with the added negative of
metrical rigidity in the Interlude.

Although a little distant and not emphatic enough in the primary subject,
Kissin does tear into the Interlude's conclusion.  Edelstein's version
turns things around by offering a sharply etched and very interesting
pirmary subject; unfortunately, she misses much of the ensuing tension
and drama.

I have to give Rubinstein some major points for his stunningly regal
conclusion to the Interlude, but the ascending melody from the primary
subject presents a big problem.  Rubinstein prettifies the melody and
offers no urgency at all; the result is an innocuous brew.  Another
version I can't work up much enthusiasm for is the Cherkassky; everything
is in place for a great performance, but he doesn't churn up the energy.
"Elisso" also applies restrained energy, but she is highly poetic.

As in the Horowitz/Philips, urgency is very low with Horowitz/Sony.  Its
saving grace is that the younger Horowitz eschews the over-blown effects he
later creates and instead offers many effective nuances.

Overall, Kempff's version of the 5th Movement is excellent, although
somewhat low-key in the primary subject.  It is his Interlude which
astounds me in the detail and inevitability of its conclusion.

Duphil's 5th Movement is her best up to this point.  I really like her
primary subject's momentum and sharp contours.  However, she still can
be a little stingy with the music's poetry, and she doesn't offer fluid
readings.  Neuhaus is very rewarding, but the intensity could have
greater.

Alfred Cortot always manages to be fluid no matter how fast or sharply
he plays.  His 5th Movement is well under 3 minutes and delivers the
sense of urgency and intensity expected from him.  My only quibble is
that I don't appreciate the rushed staccato attack at the opening of
the Interlude.

I have mixed feeling about Argerich's performance.  The conclusion to
the Interlude finds her streaking outward in all directions in a very
exciting reading.  On the debit side, she's rather skittery and restrained
in the primary subject; when she starts the Interlude with great force,
I find it jarring instead of stunning.

Among the exceptional versions, Pollini most conveys the alter-ego
Florestan; he is powerful, never looks back, and his determination is
at peak levels.  There's only one version that beats Pollini at his own
game, but more on that one later.

Brendel's version is wonderful with its dynamite conclusion to the
Interlude and great blend of poetry and strength, but he gives us some
very weak soprano notes in the primary subject; I would have rather heard
empty space than those puny notes.

Gieseking's 1942 performance reminds me of a mix of Cortot's intensity
and Pollini's power; he also has a conclusion to the Interlude every bit
as thrilling as Brendel's.  However, I have to warn you of the sound.
About half-way through the primary subject, the volume jumps up a mile
and the congestion at loud passages is overwhelming.  Is it worth it?
I'd say yes, but the sound could send a person with a bad headache over
the edge.

The more I hear Jurgis Karnavichius, the more I enjoy his performances.
His relatively stark and unadorned ways are very refreshing, and he
always well conveys Schumann's psychology.  In the 5th Movement, his
primary subject is a sinister creation with extremely clean and detailed
structure; in the conclusion to the Interlude, Karnavichius sounds like
a freight train coming through my door.

The two versions that go to the top of the charts are the Gieseking/BBC
and the Schliessmann.  Although the BBC sound is problematic, it doesn't
have the huge volume increase or level of congestion of the 1942 version.
Gieseking/BBC has plenty of intensity and poetry in the first subejct,
and the Interlude is absolutely transcendent with its appetite for
excitement; I've never heard the opening played with such perfect
pacing and yearning.

I earlier mentioned that there is one version which beats Pollini's by
being more powerful and determined.  That version comes from Burkard
Schliessmann who goes well beyond power and determination; his Florestan
is brutal and all-encompassing.  Those tremendous bass strokes that
Schliessmann used in the 1st Movement are back with a vengence, and his
tension is razor-sharp.  He may slight some of the music's poetry, but
the interpretation is so incisive and compelling that poetry hardly
factors into the musical equation.

6th Movement(Lento assai) - Warm, loving, and luxurious Eusebius music
dominates the 6th Movement, although there are important passages of
increased tension and even desperation.  Many pianists do not project
Florestan strongly, an approach which diminishes contrast.  Of course,
a very loving performance can partially offset the lack in tension.

Rubinstein is neither loving nor luxurious, sounding rather cool and
carefree in disposition.  Further, the tension he supplies to convey
Florestan is not impressive.

Brendel is an improvement over Rubinstein as he offers much more warmth
to the Eusebius music.  However, his accenting and exclamations for
Florestan are rather weak; more sharply etched phrasing would have been
advantageous.  If Florestan is going to be portrayed in a background
manner, a performance which exudes tremendous warmth such as Wirrsaladze's
tender interpretation is needed.  Unfortunately, Brendel is no match for
her in the 6th Movement.

Irina Edelstein hasn't been among the more poetic pianists up to this
point, and her 6th Movement lacks sufficient fluidity.  She sounds rushed
at times with bumpy rhythms in the primary subject, and that's pretty
much the demise of an inviting Eusebius.

I find the Argerich version on the irritating side.  Her Eusebius music
is so soft that she seems lethargic as well as distant; if the volume
is raised, the dramatic passages are excessively loud.  I end up constantly
fiddling with my audio controls to no avail.

Kissin's performance is an excellent one.  He's very warm, luxurious,
and into the emotional core, qualities which were sporadic in the earlier
movements.  Still, the tension could be appreciably tighter.  For most
of his 1985 peformance, Horowitz is more compelling than Kissin, but he
indulges in some attention-getting phrasing which I find unappealing.
Fortunately, Horowitz does nothing self-indulgent in his Sony recording.

Other excellent readings include the very warm Pollini, the poetic
Neuhaus, the lovingly phrased Duphil, the incisive Cherkassky, the
emphatic Moiseiwitsch, the detailed Kempff, the surprisingly lyrical
O'Rourke, and the pensively inclined Anda.

Moving up to the exceptional versions, Burkhard Schliessmann shows
that he can luxuriate in Eusebius as well as convey Florestan's fiery
impulsiveness.  The performance gives off great warmth and comfort while
never being stingy with the dramatic passages.

Jurgis Karnavichius continues to offer very desireable readings; his
6th Movement is so relaxed and confident that I can't imagine anyone not
taking the advice of his Eusebius.  There's also plenty of detail and
some delicious accenting.

Jerome Rose hasn't been a fountain of lyricism, but he finally slows
down and savors the music he is playing.  Having one of the slowest
performances on record, Rose now has the time to dig into Schumann's
psychology as represented by Eusebius.  The pacing is perfect with
intervals that stick in one's memory.

Big-boned interpretations highlighting the music's tension and drama
come from Horowitz/Sony, Cortot, and both Giesekings.  Each of these
versions also offer ample tenderness and contemplation.

Pride of place goes to Elisso Wirssaladze who actually doesn't convey
much drama or tension.  However, her shadings of darkness and light
combined with great warmth set against a stark atmosphere result in a
haunting interpretation that erases any thoughts of a lack of power in
the reading.  This is Wirssaladze's best performance, and it's a shame
that she took so long to reach the zenith.

Update: The Gieseking performances have been the front-runners on a
consistent basis, and they remain in this position.  The most rewarding
modern-era interpretation remains the Schliessmann, and the Karnavichius
has favorably surprised me often enough that I now expect only exceptional
readings from him.

The end is in sight for Part 3 where I'll also provide a detailed synopsis
of each version.  Most of them offer much reward and pleasure, although
Kempff, Wirssaladze, and Rubinstein have been a little disappointing.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]